tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post113055319386838973..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Proofs that Infinitely Regress And Slippery Slopes that are Actually BluffsWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-54231708396134032062012-11-22T12:31:42.893-06:002012-11-22T12:31:42.893-06:00HI there
I found your comment long after it was w...HI there<br /><br />I found your comment long after it was written. I'll reply and maybe you'll have turned on email comment notification or something. <br /><br />For Islam, Mohammed didn't actually claim to have done any miracles, and his early followers didn't claim so either. They said the Qur'an itself is their self-evident proof. I've read the thing, and invite you to do the same. No really, the whole thing. So I don't see that as comparable. (Have you read the life of Mohammed? To judge by what his own followers bragged about in his actions, he had a lot of blood on his hands. I'm not remotely tempted to call him holy.) <br /><br />For the Buddha, sure, some of his teachings are good -- but there also kind of unspecific. "Right path" -- who could argue? But it's also a fill-in-the blank, where someone else has to provide the answer about what the "right path" is. <br /><br />I did my "due diligence" regarding religions. A lot of people don't -- not just Christians, but anti-Christians too. A lot of people say "Everybody loves their own stuff so it all must be the same." I'd invite you to look closer: It's not. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />WF<br />Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1133285116371954102005-11-29T11:25:00.000-06:002005-11-29T11:25:00.000-06:00I fail to see why Buddhism and Islam do not qualif...I fail to see why Buddhism and Islam do not qualify. Furthermore, what about all of the variety of occultism? Christians in the Middle Ages attested to the ability of witches. Today witches use these accusations to suggest that they really do have special powers. There are a ton of belief systems that fit these criteria.ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08880035122340162819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131767668960516762005-11-11T21:54:00.000-06:002005-11-11T21:54:00.000-06:00Well, as I began my post, the most typical respons...Well, as I began my post, the most typical response to proof is actually denial. "If they do not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe even if someone should rise from the dead." -- Jesus<BR/><BR/>Just keep an open mind. And you can have the "last word" if you like. (I think you're probably obliged to deny being in denial ... )<BR/><BR/>Take care & God blessWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131557581895577892005-11-09T11:33:00.000-06:002005-11-09T11:33:00.000-06:00Did something remarkable happen? Yes, but not in ...Did something remarkable happen? Yes, but not in any sense that shows Jesus was God. Worth investigating? Not now, so long after all the witnesses are dead. Also, the remarkable thing isn't necessarily what the Talmud said - the reference comes in the 4th century, so the rabbis writting it wouldn't have been in much of a position to know the truth.<BR/><BR/>I could find nothing in your old reply on why we should trust identifications of the authors made a century after the Gospels were written. I was aware of Papias's statement regarding Mark, but its not clear if it refers to the same Gospel of Mark we have, and in any case came decades after the Gospel. On the matter of John, I have to side with the scholars who conclude, based on later date and other factors, that the appendix simply means that the author thought his testimony went back to a disciple.<BR/><BR/>What do we have, in the end? Good reason to think that Paul and some other people, who knows how many, thought Jesus appeared to them after death. Remarkable, but no more so than that many people think they've been abducted by aliens.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131510778638325452005-11-08T22:32:00.000-06:002005-11-08T22:32:00.000-06:00Let's go with Uri Geller; it looks like a fun one....Let's go with Uri Geller; it looks like a fun one. Let's say that just for the sake of expediency I'll assume that they meet the criteria posted and grant that he's doing something unusual, regardless of how. Again, assuming that the evidence holds up, that seems a completely sane opinion. After all, even his detractors aren't saying "he's not doing it, it's not really happening." Saying it's a trick maybe, but not saying "didn't happen." So regardless of whether I can explain (say) how he makes a watch stop ticking then start again, I accept the fact that the watch does stop then start again. Even "debunking" it as a trick starts with the assumption that the events in question are actually happening. Again, assuming for expediency's sake that this meets the criteria, then there would in fact be good evidence that he's doing something unusual. You may be pro (say he's psychic) or con (say he's doing tricks), but the fact that he's doing unusual things is not the point in question. <BR/><BR/>Now, based on the same line of reasoning, I'd say Jesus is doing something worth noticing, something worth investigating. Again, you have the "pro" people saying he's from God (see various Christian documents) or the "anti" people saying he's a sorcerer who deserved death (see the Talmud). But it's really not rationally disputable that he was doing something remarkable. <BR/><BR/>You raise "the usual" arguments about the gospels. Here's an old <A HREF="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-trustworthy-accounts-of-jesus-after.html" REL="nofollow">reply</A> of mine to "the usual". <BR/><BR/>You really wouldn't be reeled down some slippery slope to keep an open mind to the fact that something remarkable did, in fact, happen. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God blessWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131491911391682412005-11-08T17:18:00.000-06:002005-11-08T17:18:00.000-06:00Uri GellerNot sure if all of these are eyewitness,...<A HREF="http://www.uri-geller.com/books.htm" REL="nofollow">Uri Geller</A><BR/><BR/>Not sure if all of these are eyewitness, though I know Mind-Reach and the Andrija Puharich one are. Note that you'll have to scroll down a ways before you get to these. Jesus, as you may be aware, never wrote an autobiography. At any rate, that covers bullets 1-3 and 5. I'm not entirely sure what you mean with 6, it sounds non-applicable as Uri is still alive.<BR/><BR/>For 4, look up The Truth About Uri Geller by James Randi, in which Randi, who calls Uri a fraud, admits he cannot explain all of Geller's miracles.<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear here: I'm convinced Randi is right. Read his book, you'll see why. But the events are far better documented than Jesus's miracles. If Uri's are easily explained, it is only because there is so much documentation. For example, in Randi's book he says that one of the ways he figured out Geller's scams was by watching video tapes of them. Where are the videos of Jesus's resurrection?<BR/><BR/>Review, for a moment, the documentation for the resurrection:<BR/>-The brief testimony in I Corinthians, which identifies its author (Paul).<BR/>-The Gospels, which do not identifiy their authors.<BR/>-Documents from a century later claiming two Gospels are first hand acounts, one is a second hand acount, and one is a third hand acount.<BR/>-Other later documents on the martrydom of various apostles (including Paul), which sometimes conflict with eachother.<BR/><BR/>Flimsy as the evidence for alien abductions may be, this is no better. With the abductions, there is at least an undisputed connection between witness as written acounts in more than one case. And two of the most famous alien abductions, the Hill case and the Pascagoula abduction, involved multiple people.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131474709540144652005-11-08T12:31:00.000-06:002005-11-08T12:31:00.000-06:00I don't think so hallq. Where is your well-docume...I don't think so hallq. Where is your well-documented multiple-witness alien abduction? For that alien abduction, where are the hostile witnesses who agree that something of that nature happened? You're still bluffing. <BR/><BR/>Jim Jones claimed to be able to rise from the dead -- so what? I'm talking about that people *saw* him rise from the dead, *documented* that they saw him rise from the dead, etc. down the list. <BR/><BR/>Don't know who Uri Geller is but if he has proof of miracles (which I don't rule out miracles as impossible) then bring it on. <BR/><BR/>You didn't come close to meeting the conditions; you're still bluffing. Big difference between someone like Jim Jones who says "I can come back from the dead" and someone who actually has reliable witnesses running all over the known world putting their lives ont he line and saying they actually saw it for themselves.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131415859827749022005-11-07T20:10:00.000-06:002005-11-07T20:10:00.000-06:00Minus your last condition, alien abduction and the...Minus your last condition, alien abduction and the miracles of Uri Geller qualify. As we live in a free society, believers in neither were put to death. However, I just finished reading about Jim Jones, who claimed to be able to rise from the dead and whose followers willingly killed themselves down in Guyana. Happy?The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131087769391056132005-11-04T01:02:00.000-06:002005-11-04T01:02:00.000-06:00I'm with the "lot of really reliable regular proof...I'm with the "lot of really reliable regular proof" camp. <BR/><BR/>P.S. I was thinking of this post when I wrote the humility one, ironically enough. It just strikes me as odd that *that* was the line you'd single out (most people really do find "beginning" to be a stunningly obvious concept), I'd had the general tone in mind myself.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1131077214606402592005-11-03T22:06:00.000-06:002005-11-03T22:06:00.000-06:00With extraordinary proof, you don't need some craz...With extraordinary proof, you don't need some crazy, mystical proof; you just need a lot of really reliable regular proof.<BR/><BR/><I>given how obvious it is that there is a first cause...</I><BR/><BR/>That post on humility came right on time.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07397983429766950558noreply@blogger.com