NATION

PASSWORD

Does God (Christian) exist (Try No.2)

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Does the Christian God exist?

Yes
162
40%
No
151
37%
Possibly
35
9%
Probably not
57
14%
 
Total votes : 405

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40533
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:32 pm

The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:What can you test? That the Roman Empire existed and controlled Judea at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived? No one's disputing that. That the Gospels get the general environment of Jesus' ministry correct? No one's disputing that. Miracles and rising from the dead, now, those are different things.

It is not certain that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple of that name. The book itself has no author's name in it, and "Matthew" was only added in the century after it was written. The Gospel of John says it was composed from testimony of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but doesn't name him. The identification of the author of that gospel with the disciple John originates more than half a century after Jesus' death. And again, all the writings about Jesus come directly from his followers or from non-Christians writing about Christians and what they believed. There are no documents saying "On the 7th day before the Kalends of October a man called Iesus, from Nazareth in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas was arraigned before the Procurator Pontius Pilatus ..."

Look, believe what you like but don't tell me there is scientific evidence for it when there isn't.


Just because the miracles and the resurrection seem so odd dosen't mean they can be true.

The authorship of the Gospels are well-established fact.

Matthew did wrote Matthew-http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
And John did wrote John- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.php
There is well established evidence that the Matthew and John was indeed authored by the authors with the same names.

But, the amount of secular sources testifying Jesus is noteworthy, 4 sources, of course from the Bible and several secular sources. There is actually no doubt among modern scholars that Jesus existed.


Actually, the general scholarly agreement is that the books of the gospel were written well after the supposed events unfolded. The gospel authors are anonymous and most scholars disagree that they were written by the disciples. There is a bit of debate as to which came first. Mark is supposedly written during the time of Nero's persecution of the Christians, at least 30 years after the supposed events took place.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:32 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:So you admit that I'm correct. You claimed that the null hypothesis meant that the default was a lack of knowledge.

No I didn't. I claimed the exact opposite.
WestRedMaple wrote:So null hypothesis obviously was irrelevant to the topic to which you were responding.

Only if you literally aren't reading a single thing I'm posting. And I'm beginning to think that's the case.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:33 pm

Immoren wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
There we go, you're unable to actually support your claim with even one case.

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge


Why wouldn't null hypothesis be default?


Because at the default state, it hasn't even been formed yet. You have to form it before it is formed.....that's kind of how things work

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:34 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Immoren wrote:
Why wouldn't null hypothesis be default?


Because at the default state, it hasn't even been formed yet. You have to form it before it is formed.....that's kind of how things work

And it hasn't been formed...because you say so. Got it. Brilliant argument.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:35 pm

Sun Wukong wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
So you should go back and actually read the discussion you were jumping into.

The position was that not having evidence of something means it does not exist.

I pointed out that this position is incorrect.

There is no sign that Mav has misconstrued anything. Stop accusing others of ineptitude when they argue you into a corner. It makes you look petulant.


So you ignore the actual discussion in favor of telling me to stop doing something that never happened.

You really should try reading the discussion before replying. Then you wouldn't look so silly

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 202544
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:35 pm

I was mostly under the impression that to say something exists we need evidence of it first. Mere belief in is not evidence. It's just belief.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:35 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Sun Wukong wrote:There is no sign that Mav has misconstrued anything. Stop accusing others of ineptitude when they argue you into a corner. It makes you look petulant.


So you ignore the actual discussion in favor of telling me to stop doing something that never happened.

You really should try reading the discussion before replying. Then you wouldn't look so silly

I don't think you should be telling someone they should read before replying.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:36 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
So you should go back and actually read the discussion you were jumping into.

The position was that not having evidence of something means it does not exist.

I pointed out that this position is incorrect.

No you didn't. You pointed out that not having evidence and not existing aren't the same thing. They aren't. There not being evidence of something leads to the functional nonexistence of that something. The position doesn't literally mean that something not having evidence renders an existent thing nonexistent. That's stupid and honestly downright silly to pretend it is.


Yes, I did. You even now agree with me, but still complain that I pointed it out

User avatar
Sun Wukong
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9798
Founded: Oct 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Wukong » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:37 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Sun Wukong wrote:There is no sign that Mav has misconstrued anything. Stop accusing others of ineptitude when they argue you into a corner. It makes you look petulant.


So you ignore the actual discussion in favor of telling me to stop doing something that never happened.

You really should try reading the discussion before replying. Then you wouldn't look so silly

Ah. Irony.
Great Sage, Equal of Heaven.

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:37 pm

Sun Wukong wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
Ah, so are unfamiliar with what we are talking about and couldn't actually come up with anything to contribute to the discussion or topic.

But hey, I'll issue the challenge to you as well: can you find a case where the default state was knowledge?

Why would I argue in favor of your invented strawman?


Why don't you ask something with any basis in reality?

User avatar
Planita
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1742
Founded: May 01, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Planita » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:37 pm

Oh boy this sh*t again

User avatar
Sun Wukong
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9798
Founded: Oct 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Wukong » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:38 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Sun Wukong wrote:Why would I argue in favor of your invented strawman?


Why don't you ask something with any basis in reality?

After you.
Great Sage, Equal of Heaven.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65248
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Immoren » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:38 pm

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I was mostly under the impression that to say something exists we need evidence of it first. Mere belief in is not evidence. It's just belief.


Now we're arguing whether default position to hypothesis is negative or "dunno-lol"-.
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40533
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:38 pm

Does anyone think anowana exists?
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:39 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:No you didn't. You pointed out that not having evidence and not existing aren't the same thing. They aren't. There not being evidence of something leads to the functional nonexistence of that something. The position doesn't literally mean that something not having evidence renders an existent thing nonexistent. That's stupid and honestly downright silly to pretend it is.


Yes, I did. You even now agree with me, but still complain that I pointed it out

No, you didn't. See, I can just say "NO!" as well.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:39 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
Ah, so are unfamiliar with what we are talking about and couldn't actually come up with anything to contribute to the discussion or topic.

But hey, I'll issue the challenge to you as well: can you find a case where the default state was knowledge?

You do realize that you're effectively arguing that the null hypothesis is not the default because the null hypothesis is not the default, right?


No, you're still just fumbling around trying to explain why you think the null hypothesis means that we somehow magically start with knowledge before gaining any knowledge.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 202544
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:39 pm

Immoren wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I was mostly under the impression that to say something exists we need evidence of it first. Mere belief in is not evidence. It's just belief.


Now we're arguing whether default position to hypothesis is negative or "dunno-lol"-.


Yeah, I can gather as much. :3
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 111675
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:39 pm

Planita wrote:Oh boy this sh*t again

You know, it's not actually actionable to post "Oh boy this sh*t again" type things, but there are times when I think it ought to be. My opinion, not in a Modly capacity but as a person who also happens to be a Mod. You're welcome to participate but when you do, try to post something that adds to the conversation.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65248
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Immoren » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:40 pm

Neutraligon wrote:Does anyone think anowana exists?


google tried to correct it into arowana.
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40533
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:40 pm

Immoren wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Does anyone think anowana exists?


google tried to correct it into arowana.


so does it exist? I used the spelling deliberately.
Last edited by Neutraligon on Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Felkesjud
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Jul 29, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Felkesjud » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:40 pm

Fjormark wrote:I don't think you realise that it's the other way around, the Bible is based on God, His actions and different historical events. God's actions are recounted in the Bible, but God has worked with many historical figures who recall God as guidance. Your entire logic is based on the legitimacy of the Bible, that's all there is to your argument because you can't attack anything else to back yourself.

Hmm, so the Bible is the correct recounting of God's actions? Thus, what we are able to know of his/her/its abilities and his/her/its past actions is based upon the Bible. And, as I demonstrated in the thread, my logic is not based entirely upon the legitimacy of the Bible. But, yours (as a Christian) is. Because, I have deductive reasoning and logic on my side, as I managed to show multiple times in the thread. All you have to support your claims is the Bible. Do not try to twist things. You're bad at it.
Fjormark wrote:Hahahaha, you're actually seriously asking me this. I shouldn't be surprised, this is coming from the same person that said God can't exist because he can't lift the Earth. Really dude, you'll never understand what I'm telling you, this isn't your thing, try to find other things in life to argue about, I'm wasting my time here just as you are.

Actually, you're twisting what I said again. I never said he couldn't lift the earth. I said that omnipotence is a logical fallacy and a paradox, in and of itself. Because, if one is omnipotent, they are able to do everything. However, this means they should be able to create an object so massive that they cannot physically lift it. Which would, in turn, prove they cannot do everything. Hence, one with omnipotence cannot have omnipotence. And, I understand exactly what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense. You try to claim that we're the ones acting as though we're intellectually superior, when that's exactly what you're doing. I can't tell if you're a troll or just don't understand what you're saying, yourself. And, you never actually answered the question. What is the point of following the religion of Christianity if nothing in the Bible is logically possible or true? Would one not be following lies?

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:41 pm

WestRedMaple wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:You do realize that you're effectively arguing that the null hypothesis is not the default because the null hypothesis is not the default, right?


No, you're still just fumbling around trying to explain why you think the null hypothesis means that we somehow magically start with knowledge before gaining any knowledge.

No, we don't magically start with knowledge. We start with knowledge as a consequence of being, well, alive.

And I'm aware you're not that knowledgeable of science, but living isn't magical.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:41 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:So you admit that I'm correct. You claimed that the null hypothesis meant that the default was a lack of knowledge.

No I didn't. I claimed the exact opposite.
WestRedMaple wrote:So null hypothesis obviously was irrelevant to the topic to which you were responding.

Only if you literally aren't reading a single thing I'm posting. And I'm beginning to think that's the case.


Sorry, typo. You claimed that the null hypothesis meant that the default was knowledge. That is obviously incorrect, as knowledge is used in the creation of the hypothesis.

The null hypothesis doesn't really have anything to do with the post to which you were responding.

The default is NOT knowledge. Until you gain knowledge, you do not have it.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 202544
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:43 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Immoren wrote:
google tried to correct it into arowana.


so does it exist? I used the spelling deliberately.


Is that a fish?
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:43 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
WestRedMaple wrote:
Because at the default state, it hasn't even been formed yet. You have to form it before it is formed.....that's kind of how things work

And it hasn't been formed...because you say so. Got it. Brilliant argument.



Ah, another strawman I see.

Can you find even one hypothesis existing before anyone formed it? I didn't think so

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, American Legionaries, Bienenhalde, Eahland, Google [Bot], Hirota, Majestic-12 [Bot], Neo-American States, Rusticus I Damianus, The North Polish Union

Advertisement

Remove ads