A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Viviane

  Your argument that there certainly was no resurrection rests on the assumption there is no God.

  Whereas belief in the resurrection rests on the view that God exists and resurrection is a plausible act for such a being.

  Interesting how you attempt to use words to frame these. One is an assumption, the other is a view. Wouldn't be more proper an accurate to say there no no evidence for god nor a resurrection and all evidence in existence points to neither of those things being true, whereas the assumption that both of those things are true has absolutely no backing in evidence whatsoever?

  Wouldn't also be exactly as fair to so that the argument that Krampus doesn't exist is also an assumption, just as is it that Jesus didn't poop or have a wife? Or that you aren't made of invisible unicorn teapots orbiting Mars that we simply have no way to detect?

  The problem is that once you give an equal weight to "can't prove it isn't true" claims, every claim is just a viable as the next because you've unshackled anything you say from reality.
• 

  nicolaou

  SBF: Your argument that there certainly was no resurrection rests on the assumption there is no God.

  Reductio ad absurdum Slim'? You're attempting to refute my argument by extending its logic to the point of absurdity.
  

  My argument that there was no resurrection rested on medical evidence and the weight of human experience. A slippery attempt to convert my claim into a debate about the existence of god looks like nothing other than your wish to move onto familiar territory.

  We all know you hate to concede to certainty "there are no facts, only interpretations" right? So when confronted with the factual certainty of human mortality you shift the debate onto something even atheists know they cannot prove, the non-existence of god.

  Voila! You appear to be the reasonable winner of the argument. But it wasn't the argument I started and I'm sorry I was sucked in to your trap for so long.

  SBF: I can't understand why the idea of resurrection should be impossible.

  That about sums you up Slim'. You may as well claim that 1+1 equalling 7 isn't impossible.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  The reason I argued that the feasibility of a resurrection is bound up with the existence or otherwise of God is because I believe the two things are logically linked for the reasons I have given. I am sorry you see this as a nefarious plot. I see it as clarifying the issue.

  To me it seems pretty simple: a material universe without any supreme being is one in which a resurrection is very unlikely. Whereas a universe caused by a supreme being is one where a resurrection is entirely possible. Therefore the feasibility of a resurrection hangs on the existence or otherwise of God.

  To me it's as if you want to exclude God by the back door. First you want to establish that a resurrection certainly could not have happened. Having conceded that, the other person has already entered with you into a purely material conception of reality that excludes God. So the discussion is over before it began.
• 

  smiddy

  miss ives01

  Welcome to the forum ,and with all due respect I would ,if I were you ,reject the over-simplified version of Evolution dished out by the WT writers who more than often cherry pick Creationist fundamentalists to further their point of view .

  You need to broaden your horizons on the subject with scientific facts that are easily found with a little research.

  However whatever you do stick around , I learnt more about the JW`s than I ever thought I knew on this site and I was an avid reader of WT publications ,here you will learn TTATT .

  Cofty has some excellent posts on this subject
• 

  Fisherman

  Real evidence is what convinces the mind. The Bible records that consistently God always gave proof and never ever expected people to believe without solid evidence and that is why the Bible records that God gave Paul and those Christians back then sufficient proof. They had back then writings and testimonies, etc. but it was not enough to convince Paul until proof from God (according to the Bible) converted him. If such is true, then it is logical to conclude that today also God would also give equivalent evidence to convince people unequivocally that he exists and that he cares about people.
  
• 

  Viviane

  The Bible records that consistently God always gave proof and never ever expected people to believe without solid evidence and that is why the Bible records that God gave Paul and those Christians back then sufficient proof.

  Curious, then, that Paul then said to have faith and to not need proof. Was he going against god when he did that?
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Viv, proof is about the present. Faith is about the future. Let's say for example that a person prayed to God for solid proof and that person got that proof to his or her satisfaction. At first, such phenomenon would have a deep effect on a person but I guarantee that as remarkable as anything may seem, one gets used to it -and then it is about relief and not about proof. So here is where faith is needed. A person may reason, 'I know God exists for a fact, I know he cares about me; I have solid evidence, but so what, I suffer from depression, or I have such illness, or some loved one died, or some other horrible thing happened' -and you ain't getting relief NOW, you have to wait and maybe you figure that you have to die waiting. Some people get tired of waiting and walk away from all of the proof and just live for the present -but not if you have faith because you reason that based upon that real evidence, there is hope, relief will realize. But without solid proof, faith crumbles. At least for me; I need solid evidence of something in action that I can observe; and based on my present observations, I can predict future actions of that something, but only if that something proves to be faithful in the future -a chance I have to take. That chance is faith.
  
• 

  Viviane

  Faith is about the future

  Huh? Are you saying it's not possible to have faith or proof that something in the past happened? Or that something is happening right now? Hebrews 11:1 says it is both for the future and for what we do not see, as in the present.
  

  But without solid proof, faith crumbles.

  That's literally the opposite of how the Bible describes faith.
  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Viv, every person mentioned in Hebrews 11 had proof from God -something that they observed and knew with certainty to be real- before they decided to have faith. Even myself, without convincing evidence, I would not be able to have any faith, my mind would not trust something subjective 100 percent. The mind trusts proof.
  

  Given: Proof that God exists, proof that he cares, proof that he has power. -but no relief, for that faith is need.

  Take for examples the wilderness trek, pillar of cloud, pillar of fire, the ten plagues, manna from the heavens, water from a rock, the red sea -and with all that proof Israelites still needed faith that God would keep his promise. This is jw 101.

  The wt has tons and tons of commentary.
• 

  Viviane

  Viv, every person mentioned in Hebrews 11 had proof from God

  Hebrews 11:1, my friend. Why do you deny the words of Paul?
  

  something that they observed and knew with certainty to be real- before they decided to have faith

  Nooope. Noah built the ark before he saw the flood. Abraham went, by faith, so somewhere he had no proof of. Sarah had faith before she had proof she would bear a child.

  All of your examples, when considered, show your claim to be false.
  
  

  Even myself, without convincing evidence, I would not be able to have any faith, my mind would not trust something subjective 100 percent. The mind trusts proof.

  That is literally the opposite of faith. You are denying what you were commanded to do as a Christian according to Paul.

  Take for examples the wilderness trek, pillar of cloud, pillar of fire, the ten plagues, manna from the heavens, water from a rock, the red sea -and with all that proof Israelites still needed faith that God would keep his promise.

  And the Israelites were called a faithless people. So what?