Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[BreezeWood]

"there are no atheists in foxholes"

maybe, as there are also other than desert dwellers that do not need the implied crutch.

 

[Bad Bob]

Proving your alibi (i.e. a positive) is how you are proving you didn't commit the murder (i.e. a negative).

Awesome.

BTW, I've been to marriage counseling....with my ex. Have you ever had similar counseling? I know a lot of religious people enjoy prayer meetings/church groups. Those are excellent sources for connecting with fellow church members. There's a value in having same couple "prayer meetings" and those separated by sex, either single, married or both.

The main purpose of such gatherings/meetings, of course, is to resolve differences in a sharing and peaceful manner. You know, like Jesus and Siddhartha advised. Probably a few others.
Now prove me wrong. LOL <-joke

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims. Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true. Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile"). In formal logic and mathematics, the negation of a proposition can be proven using procedures such as modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. In empirical contexts (such as evaluating the existence or nonexistence of unicorns), inductive reasoning is often used for establishing the plausibility of a claim based on observed evidence. Though inductive reasoning may not provide absolute certainty about negative claims, this is only due to the nature of inductive reasoning; inductive reasoning provides proof from probability rather than certainty. Inductive reasoning also does not provide absolute certainty about positive claims.

 

[ding]

Incorrect. I mentioned the OT stories because you claimed the Jews saw God only as good and loving and I believe their view was more complex than that.

Not incorrect. My observation wasn't limited to just today. This isn't our first rodeo.

I can't imagine Jesus and Nahum talking about the same God.

You're proving my point.

From the Book of ding?

Do you suppose I'm the first to say God is love, God is truth, God is logic?

Or it isn't.

Do you know what anthropomorphic means? Because claiming God is very human warts and all seems to fit that definition. Anthropomorphic means attributing human characteristics, emotions, behaviors, or physical forms to non-human entities.

Again, I only mentioned Joshua to show how Jews viewed their God and what his morality was.

Again... not our first rodeo. Please share with me how God can be responsible for all of the bad acts of the OT that we have discussed over the years without making it a supernatural communication because my point is valid. You take the embellishments of the OT as supernatural acts of God because it makes God look bad and take the supernatural acts of Jesus as embellishments because you can't stomach God looking good. You have it completely backwards. And I believe you do so because it is self serving for your beliefs.

 

[ding]

Awesome.

BTW, I've been to marriage counseling....with my ex. Have you ever had similar counseling?

Yeah, 30 years or so ago. Must have worked because we are still together. Why do you ask?

I know a lot of religious people enjoy prayer meetings/church groups. Those are excellent sources for connecting with fellow church members. There's a value in having same couple "prayer meetings" and those separated by sex, either single, married or both.

My wife is not the religious type. And despite what some might think, I'm not really either. I'm more about God than religion. God gets a bad rap. That doesn't sit well with me.

The main purpose of such gatherings/meetings, of course, is to resolve differences in a sharing and peaceful manner. You know, like Jesus and Siddhartha advised. Probably a few others.
Now prove me wrong. LOL <-joke

I'd love to do so but honest men can have honest differences of opinions. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I'm not a fan of critical theory. I much prefer stating what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not a fan of criticizing what I don't believe to arrive at what I do believe without ever examining what I believe.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims. Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true. Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile"). In formal logic and mathematics, the negation of a proposition can be proven using procedures such as modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. In empirical contexts (such as evaluating the existence or nonexistence of unicorns), inductive reasoning is often used for establishing the plausibility of a claim based on observed evidence. Though inductive reasoning may not provide absolute certainty about negative claims, this is only due to the nature of inductive reasoning; inductive reasoning provides proof from probability rather than certainty. Inductive reasoning also does not provide absolute certainty about positive claims.

 

[Bad Bob]

maybe, as there are also other than desert dwellers that do not need the implied crutch.

If you are saying that fervent religious believers will commit acts of violence, I agree.

Otherwise, I do not understand.

 

[ding]

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

Along this line of thought - and you are going to want to pay attention to this alang1216 and Hypatia415 - the extant attributes of reality are positive attributes (love, truth, logic, order, harmony, compassion, etc.). The negative attributes (hate, lies, irrational, chaos, discord, cruelty, etc.) are the negation of the positive attributes and can only exist as the absence of the positive attribute. Ergo the negation of positive attributes does not exist unto itself and are therefore, not extant. In other words, they don't exist. So if you are like me and most monotheistic/henotheistic religions, you believe that God is the ultimate existence and the source of all other existences, then you would believe that the ultimate existence has imbued all other existences with the extant attributes of reality because that existence is those extant attributes of reality. Mind you I am not saying the ultimate existence has those attributes. I am saying the ultimate existence IS those attributes. So maybe in the future, use this perception of God before you start shitting on God. Because when you shit on God, you are shitting on love, truth, logic, order, harmony, compassion, etc. One of my biggest complaints with atheists is that they have no perception of God that is reasonable. So of course they stand no chance of discovering God.

 

[alang1216]

Not incorrect. My observation wasn't limited to just today. This isn't our first rodeo.

Then you have learned by now that I don't believe ANY supernatural biblical story.

You're proving my point.

But they did talk about the same God. Tell me how that is possible?

Do you suppose I'm the first to say God is love, God is truth, God is logic?

Just as I'm not the first to say the Lord is a jealous and vengeful God?

Do you know what anthropomorphic means? Because claiming God is very human warts and all seems to fit that definition. Anthropomorphic means attributing human characteristics, emotions, behaviors, or physical forms to non-human entities.

My view is hardly surprising since we made God in our image.

Again... not our first rodeo. Please share with me how God can be responsible for all of the bad acts of the OT that we have discussed over the years without making it a supernatural communication because my point is valid. You take the embellishments of the OT as supernatural acts of God because it makes God look bad and take the supernatural acts of Jesus as embellishments because you can't stomach God looking good. You have it completely backwards. And I believe you do so because it is self serving for your beliefs.

Then you have learned by now that I don't believe ANY supernatural biblical story. There is no God to tell anyone anything. The Jews had one perception of God, Christians had another and each wrote their scripture to reflect that understanding.

 

[ding]

Then you have learned by now that I don't believe ANY supernatural biblical story.

Then you were arguing dishonestly when you argued against the God of Abraham based upon OT accounts.

But they did talk about the same God. Tell me how that is possible?

Why? It won't make a difference. Your mind is made up which is why you make dishonest arguments and then change them when it suits your purpose.

Just as I'm not the first to say the Lord is a jealous and vengeful God?

Based upon what? Supernatural events that you don't believe. The sophistry is strong in you.

My view is hardly surprising since we made God in our image.

Maybe you did, but I didn't.

Then you have learned by now that I don't believe ANY supernatural biblical story. There is no God to tell anyone anything. The Jews had one perception of God, Christians had another and each wrote their scripture to reflect that understanding.

And yet you made arguments like you did. Tell me again why you would never worship the God of Abraham.

 

[ding]

Could a perfect God order Joshua to kill every man, woman, child (including newborns), and animal in a conquered town? Apparently so.

The point is that God's moral code allowed him to punish or kill innocent men, women, children, and animals.

God destroyed Sodom because the people were evil, fine. Were the babies evil too? Not seeing much from God love there.

Is this the same God who wiped out just about every man, women, child, and animal in a flood? The God to order Israelites to invade foreign countries, commit genocide, and make slaves of their enemies? The God that punishes the innocent?

GOD doesn't punish innocent people? You think that in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah there were no babies or children?

If you don't believe in anything supernatural then why were you blaming God? Isn't that a dishonest argument?