Did Jesus Exist?

[G.T.]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

 

[ding]

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

You can't scrutinize what you summarily dismiss, GT, and that's what you do.

To *you.

Ive had these discussions for years and years and with many folks, even at usmb.

Youre not privy to all of those conversations.

Guess youre not omniscient...something else hard for you to hear apparently

Send me a link to one of them so I can see for myself, GT. Fair enough?

If someone else asks, I will. Ive had long, long winded conversations pointing out the logical incoherence of the t a.g. argument. for example.

It was logically ruled out as a good argument for god, not dismissed out of hand. Thats a you thing because of your inability to read, comprehend, respond in good faith and or be logical.

Right back at ya, bro.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

An atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts. They claim that there is no God. But they have no evidence for that position. Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position. Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith. I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them. Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

 

[ding]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

 

[G.T.]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

 

[ding]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

An atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts. They claim that there is no God. But they have no evidence for that position. Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position. Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith. I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them. Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

100%. Not all atheists, but militant atheists for sure behave as if their beliefs are a religion. Not surprisingly we see these same adversarial behaviors between rival religions just like atheism does. Usually it is against the dominant religion of the day.

 

[G.T.]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

An atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts. They claim that there is no God. But they have no evidence for that position. Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position. Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith. I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them. Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

Atheists also evade scrutiny by being unable to even present a case. Ive never seen one that even closely resembles a decent rationale

 

[ding]

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

 

[G.T.]

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

Its evidence, but its irrelevant evidence in terms of proving the case because it would be circular.

Defining something into existence.

Ding made cellphones.

I have a cellphone.

Therefore, ding exists. . .

is not coherent logic when premise 1 (ding created cell phones. god created...creation) can simply be designed to fit.

 

[ding]

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

 

[ding]

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

Its evidence, but its irrelevant evidence in terms of proving the case because it would be circular.

Defining something into existence.

Ding made cellphones.

I have a cellphone.

Therefore, ding exists. . .

is not coherent logic when premise 1 (ding created cell phones. god created...creation) can simply be designed to fit.

But that's not my argument at all. Thanks for summarily dismissing it.

 

[G.T.]

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

about 45minutes ago, you called space proof that god exists.

you used the word proof


thats when i told you that you dont understand the difference between evidence and proof


now, youre arguing that its not proof...just evidence


do you understand that these are more reasons nobody belongs discussing these things with you??

 

[DrLove]

Atheists also evade scrutiny by being unable to even present a case. Ive never seen one that even closely resembles a decent rationale

Riddle me this: Since nobody actually KNOWS (either by faith or denial) ..
Wouldn't that make us all Agnostics?

 

[ding]

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

about 45minutes ago, you called space proof that god exists.

you used the word proof


thats when i told you that you dont understand the difference between evidence and proof


now, youre arguing that its not proof...just evidence


do you understand that these are more reasons nobody belongs discussing these things with you??

GT, let's put this in context. I used both words. I clarified what I meant in the second sentence. Why are you nitpicking this? Why not just investigate it instead?

 

[G.T.]

Atheists also evade scrutiny by being unable to even present a case. Ive never seen one that even closely resembles a decent rationale

Riddle me this: Since nobody actually KNOWS (either by faith or denial) ..
Wouldn't that make us all Agnostics?

If folks are honest, yes. But to any who feel theyve had true interactions with their god, thus feel it rises above faith....i guess those folks are something else....be it accurate or delusional

 

[G.T.]

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

about 45minutes ago, you called space proof that god exists.

you used the word proof


thats when i told you that you dont understand the difference between evidence and proof


now, youre arguing that its not proof...just evidence


do you understand that these are more reasons nobody belongs discussing these things with you??

GT, let's put this in context. I used both words. I clarified what I meant in the second sentence. Why are you nitpicking this? Why not just investigate it instead?

View attachment 168561

investigation involves a scrutinizing of whats presented....not that I consider what you, personally present...you dont even take care in the words you use

 

[westwall]

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

 

[G.T.]

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

There's tons of things to unpackage in the arguments - but the main, and easiest bit of illogic to present is that it all rests on a backwards formulation of god ~ i.e. taking what's known about exisstence and formulating the characteristics of god right around it....thus defining it into existence. All of the man-made religions rest on this form of circular logic...which is why I cannot take them seriously as "proof" of anything.

For instance the passages about an unbeliever will say x, y z....and it magically comports with reality not because it was prophetic, but that it logically follows that an unbeliever would say x, y z.

Ive seen those passages presented as literal arguments...as literal proof and prophecy.

All it proves is that humans are gullible....myself not excluded in some areas of life.

 

[westwall]

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

There's tons of things to unpackage in the arguments - but the main, and easiest bit of illogic to present is that it all rests on a backwards formulation of god ~ i.e. taking what's known about exisstence and formulating the characteristics of god right around it....thus defining it into existence. All of the man-made religions rest on this form of circular logic...which is why I cannot take them seriously as "proof" of anything.

For instance the passages about an unbeliever will say x, y z....and it magically comports with reality not because it was prophetic, but that it logically follows that an unbeliever would say x, y z.

Ive seen those passages presented as literal arguments...as literal proof and prophecy.

All it proves is that humans are gullible....myself not excluded in some areas of life.

I agree with you on the nature of their arguments. However, it is wrong to attack the people who use them. Instead, it is better show them why their line of reasoning is not considered evidence. The global warming faithful are every bit as guilty of that as well. They think that computer models are data. They are not. They are fiction, created in a computer.