Posts by Sea Breeze

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

you ruled out any other potential (natural or supernatural) explanations.

Jeffro, with all due respect I haven't "ruled out any explanations". You have not provided any serious natural explanations have you? I'm still waiting for an opinion from you.

Please explain these facts from a material naturalistic view:

1. The case of Anna in the video I posted on page 2 of this thread

2. Cases of NDE's wjere people see things while out of their body later verified to be accurate

3. Cases of verified brain dead patients acting and speaking completely normally shortly before death

Couldn't your worldview provide even a stab in the dark at these facts which are from credible sources? These facts are not going away no matter how much you pretend they are superstitions. This is why I asked if your were an atheist/materialist/naturalism/ adherent, because that changes everything.

I believe that the reason that you cannot even decide if the above simple facts are a better fit in a materialist worldview or a biblical worldview is BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. Simply put, you don't have permission to do so.

For the atheist, it isn't about the evidence at all is it? As atheist Professor Richard Lewontin says:

1. we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

2. we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive

3. materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

These are the shackles of your worldview. Notice the use of the word "forced". These are all assumptions and self-imposed restrictive rules. You have no way of knowing if they are true or useful or not, you just assume they are. Then, you criticize others if they haven't adopted your assumptions/religion. I use the word religion becuase I believe that is exactly what it is. It requires way more faith than other worldviews in my opinion.

Aside from the amount of faith that you must generate, your worldview inherently breaks the Law of Non Contradiction. Something cannot be both true and not true. Everything is ether all physical or not. It cannot be both.

You never answered my question on how you know if your reasoning is true or not? If we are a random sack of chemicals and copying mistakes as atheists claim, what basis is there to assume that your reasoning is sound?

If your assumptions are just ideas, and they are, then they are not physical are they? Why rely on anything non-physical if that is your desire?

The fact that you attempt to form an argument is a non-material process that you ironically use in an attempt to generate ONLY materialist causes. You assume your strategy, something immeterial as well is useful and thus... real.

The computer you are using in an attempt to support a materialist worldview requires the tremendous use of codes. Codes are not material are they? If I give you a memory stick full of information, it weighes exactly the same as an empty memory stick doesn't it? It has no mass. Yet it is very real.

But, you rely on them to support the idea that only material things exist. Ironic isn't it?

Math isn't physical, haphazard, or situational. You assume 2 + 2 = 4 on earth. Why wouldn't it be something else in a different place if everything is just a product of unguided explosions and random chemical reactions? Who wrote the rules of math & logic? No one you say? So, do you have any examples of math and logic arising from rocks and chemical reactions?

I say your that your worldview is based on arbitrary and inconsistent assumptions. You assume that these non physical things are reliable and true, even while you use them to argue against other non-physical possibilities. Very inconsistent. It supports the biblical view that atheists don't exist and that everyone knows in their heart of hearts that God is obviouslyt real. Furthermore, the bbile declares that people who say to themselves "there is no God" are "without excse".

Christians don't have these inconsistencies. We believe that the source of all things, material and non material originate in the mind of God.

Billions are geting ready to celebrate his birthday in a day or two. His name is Jesus. He loves you and desires an imtimate relationship with you. Isn't there room in your heart for you to accept just one more non material thing?

Merry Christmas Jeffro.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

@ Jeffro,

You made the following claims on this thread:

1."No one raised Jesus from the Dead

2. the 'gospels' are widely regarded by scholars as historical, are simply false

3. None of that has any basis in reality whatsoever. (conscious soul)

4. Beliefs about consciousness independent of a functioning physical body are just made up nonsense

experiences that are no more ‘real’ than a dream

5. This is a plain old argument from ignorance.

6. I don’t need to offer any speculative alternatives to your superstitions.

7. claims...that the 'gospels' are widely regarded by scholars as historical, are simply false.

Many of these claims are demonstratably false. On the consciousness issue - when offfered strong circumstantial evidence of consciousness existing outside the body you refuse to even consider it. I am not attacking you here, just describing in a nutshell your position.

You seem to mock and hold in disdain anything that is not material or physical. I think that is a fair assessment of your position.

A prominent atheist evolutionary biologist describes the position of materialists:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”1

– Richard Lewontin

When talking to committed atheists, it is obvious that this is the template their mind works within. Again, I'm not being derogatory, just stating an observation. Many atheists have no trouble openly stating their philosophical position.

We all have the same evidence. However it is apparent that atheists have somehow attempted to restrict their brains from reasoning on things that might lead to a supernatural conclusion.

Is this where you are at Jeffro? You cannot consider evidence that might leads to a supernatural conclusion because it violates your ideology or belief system? I think so.

I have some questions for you: If you are nothing more that a sack of chemicals and copying mistakes as atheists claim:

1.. How can you be sure that you are reasoning correctly?

2. Since brain chemistry is different for each person, how can you be sure that logic is the same for you as well as someone from China who lives on a different diet?

The certitude that your logic is a reliable guide has no basis in happenstance materialism (your worldview) as far as I can tell. Maybe you could tell me why you have so much faith in your reasoning?

Christians have reasoning rooted in the God of Truth. Truth is what reasoning is. And, truth is important and does exist. Becuse God is true, reasonable and "changeth not" , I can be certain that my logic would be the same in the United States as it would in other countries, palnets, solar systems etc.

But if your logic is a product of accidents, explosions and and copying mistakes, how can you be sure of anyting?

Again, this is not an attack on your person. Christians have been debating with unbelievers for 2000 years. It has a very long and historical tradition. We conquored the greatest empire in the world with noting more than reason and the power of our testimony.

You should consider the atheist / christian book club I mentioned earlier. There, Christians and Atheists get along great and try to refute each others' position. They have a lot of fun and truly like each other.

Recently they completed a segment called "Christianity on Trial". They just completed a segment called "Atheism on Trial".

In this segment, Mark Lanier is a Trial Lawyer who speaks on the topic of the nature of evidence. To avoid the lenghty introduction, go to time stamp 32:30 on the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj6LNDlFUz8

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

No circles. I've been on point consistently. Why is it so hard for you to just admit that these facts just don't fit in a materialist naturalistic paradigmn? Or, as you orginally put it, "has no basis in reality whatsoever".

Hand waving and telling people to just go away when they ask uncomfortable questions and present you with uncomfortable evidence can't be very satisfying.

This is what I did as a kid growing up in the "Truth". I broke the rules concerning which topics I was allowed to explore or not. I still do it. It is part of my love of freedom. Isn't it true that materialism & naturalism have some pretty tight mental rules that adherents must follow as well in order to stay within the atheist fold so to speak? I can't see where it would hurt you to wander off the plantation a little bit from time to time.

The rules you are adhering to seem self-imposed and unnecessary. It certainly looks like this apparatus prevents you from examinng even the simpliest of questions if they do not fall within your scope of allowed thinking. Can you at least admit that?

16

Am I being unreasonable in this ?

by smiddy3 in

hi friend`s ,i have my son and dil living with us ,which has been ok,overall ,quite a few years now ,however ,a few months ago they decided they wanted a dog ok ?

we had one a toy poodle for about 16-17 years and i just loved her as did my wife.. a few months ago my son wanted a dog and got a french bulldog as a pup ,which was ok by us .. however to cut a long story short, yesterday i was out in the back yard and the dog lunged at me and started attacking me in such a way as i can only describe as being frenetic in his attack ,in trying to ward off his attack and getting away from him i fell over and i believe if my son hadn`t finlly restrained him he would have mauled me .

i am 83 years old and my wife has just turned 80. and i dont want that to happen to her .. i don`t know the dog is what 4-5-6 months old i`m not sure , and been living with us all this time ,however i`m going to tell them to get that dog out of my house by the week and and a half or i will one way or another .. i am not going to tolerate that in my household and if he don`t like it he can go also .. i`m not being unreasonable am i ?

Sea Breeze

Sounds like the dog is "mentally diseased". Has he been around apostates lately?

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

You’re the only one ‘proclaiming’ an entirely unverifiable ‘explanation’.

This data isn't going to perfectly fit anywhere. It is a matter of where does it best fit considering the facts that are widely reported as true by credible sources.

My question isn't as extreme or proclatory as you pretend it is:

Do these facts better fit a materialist view where consciousness is said to be ONLY a product of physical brain function? Or, do they better fit a biblical view where consciousness is said to be separate from the body, especially at death?

This was the question:

Please explain these facts from a material naturalistic view:

1. The case of Anna in the video I posted on page 2 of this thread
2. Cases of seeing things while out of their body later verified to be accurate
3. Cases of verified brain dead patients acting and speaking completely normally shortly before death

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

So you believe these "medical mysteries" are simply not "understood" from an atheist materialistic, naturalism point of view and that gives you a basis for criticizing other viewpoints that are actually a better fit for the verified data?

Isn't that the same as saying, "I don't know" and then proceeding to try and construct an argument from this admitted ignorance using mere proclamations?

That's not much of a conversation or an argument. Why not record your proclamations and just play them on a phonograph like Rutherford used to do? Boom, no argument or reasoning needed. Just preach it.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

This is not tedious at all Jeffro. It is all very simple stuff. If you believe in materailistic naturalism and criticize others who don't, then you ought to be able to provide at least some defense for your point of view...which you haven't in these cases:

1. The case of Anna in the video I posted on page 2 of this thread

2. Cases of seeing things while out of their body later verified to be accurate

3. Cases of verified brain dead patients acting and speaking completely normally shortly before death

If you never tackle the tough questions, what are you basing your worldview on, faith?

My worldview accomodates this data quite comfortably. Yours seems to be utterly at a loss on how to respond to this kind of data. Is saying that they are all false your only defense? That's all you got? That's not much to base a worldview on, much less a basis for criticizing others.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

Jeffro, Please explain these facts from a material naturalistic view:

1. The case of Anna in the video I posted on page 2 of this thread
2. Cases of seeing things while out of their body later verified to be accurate
3. Cases of verified brain dead patients acting and speaking completely normally shortly before death
These facts are not going away no matter how much you may like them to.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

Little more that "thought stopping techniques" and false analagies bordering on the falacy of irrelevant thesis.

I was subjected to these kinds of thoght control devices since childhood by the Watchtower and my fammily. I am very familiar with them. They seem like distant cousins now.

None of the evidence being examined here has anything to do whith aliens or shamans. We are talking about facts from credible sources.

----- added------

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.

Definition:

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Asking if you are an atheist is not a negative or a positive directed against you.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Sea Breeze

@Jeffro Do you really believe that if I ask you if you are an atheist, that amounts to an ad hominem attack?

C'mon Jeffro. Get off your high horse. That is a crazy thing to say. I have no problem stating that I am a Christian. What harm is it to at least provide some definition here on your part; especially since you have made the following vast claims on this thread?

1."No one raised Jesus from the Dead

2. the 'gospels' are widely regarded by scholars as historical, are simply false

3. None of that has any basis in reality whatsoever. (conscious soul)

4. Beliefs about consciousness independent of a functioning physical body are just made up nonsense

experiences that are no more ‘real’ than a dream

5. This is a plain old argument from ignorance.

6. I don’t need to offer any speculative alternatives to your superstitions.

Certainly someone who has as many strong opinions as you do would have an opinion on whether or not God exists. I believe you are very likely to have an opinion on this topic. Why wouldn't you want disclose whether not you believe God exists on a forumn that deals specifically with theological and philosophical views and on a thread dealing with the existence of God?

The facts I've presented haven't changed since we started this discussion.

1. The case of Anna in the video I posted on page 2 of this thread

2. Cases of seeing things while out of their body later verified to be accurate

3. Cases of verified brain dead patients acting and speaking completely normally shortly before death

Here's the question you keep dodging:

Do these facts better fit a materialist view where consciousness is said to be ONLY a product of physical brain function? Or, do they better fit a biblical view where consciousness is said to be separate from the body, especially at death?

Or, do you consider yourself beyond the reach of scrutiny of your claims from others?