Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HSR said:

Either do you or the scientists who created the theory. We don't know so it must be a god is not proof of anything except for man's desperation for answers right now.

There is a reason it's been around for a long yet not accepted widely. It provide's a concept nothing more and utilizes man's imagination and desperation of some for a god.

It's not arguable, that why they came up with the multiverse.:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HSR said:

You do know the internet can be used for more than just bloviating about yourself on 2 sites? The internet is a big world with lots of stuff that's easy to find.

Another failed attempt at humour that only you found funny. Weirdo.

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

It's not arguable, that why they came up with the multiverse.:lol:

 

Arguments for the Existence of God

Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows:

1. Ontological:
It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist.
Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence.
2. Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
3. Design:
Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Images/externallink.GIFObjection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.
3a. Modern design argument:
the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge. Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge - not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological principle merely states that if we are here to observe the universe, it follows that the universe must have properties that permit intelligent life to emerge.
4. Experiential:
A very large number of people claim to have personal religious experiences of God.
Objections: We cannot assume that everything imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes.
5. Pragmatic:
Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the origin of ethical systems).
Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fine-tuning argument falls short because it assumes that our current cosmological theory is correct, as long as we invoke a non-scientific principle, God.

 

Non-scientific = human construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSR said:

The fine-tuning argument falls short because it assumes that our current cosmological theory is correct, as long as we invoke a non-scientific principle, God.

 

Non-scientific = human construct.

No it isn't.  The constants are exactly what they need to be.  That is the fine tuning of the universe.

Go post some more useless memes hall monitor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

giphy.gif

 

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

No it isn't.  The constants are exactly what they need to be.  That is the fine tuning of the universe.

Go post some more useless memes hall monitor.  

 

tenor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
33 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

What could be the reason for the massive spike in Cancers in under 54?

If you can't figure this out god is far beyond your comprehension.:lol:

 

 

 

One thing covid has done, is its made it alot easier for researchers. They just blame everything on the vaccines.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

One thing covid has done, is its made it alot easier for researchers. They just blame everything on the vaccines.

:lol:

The trend started with the vaccine rollout.  What could it be from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, HSR said:

 

insane-crazy.gif

Remember hall monitor, if the earth's orbit was just a bit closer or a bit farther away from the sun there would be no life on the planet.  That's the fine tune of the gravitational constant.  Now that doesn't explain why we have life on the planet, just the conditions are capable.

More memes now?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
27 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

The trend started with the vaccine rollout.  What could it be from?

Thing is it's not a trend. You've been shown this many times as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Remember hall monitor, if the earth's orbit was just a bit closer or a bit farther away from the sun there would be no life on the planet.  That's the fine tune of the gravitational constant.  Now that doesn't explain why we have life on the planet, just the conditions are capable.

More memes now?

:lol:

Has zero to do with any made up god, other than one is needed to explain the failed theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
5 minutes ago, HSR said:

Has zero to do with any made up god, other than one is needed to explain the failed theory.

 God must not have cared about the other planets!!!

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve753 said:

 God must not have cared about the other planets!!!

:lol:

His failed theory only speaks of some sort of a god as its needed. 

He misses the entire point of the thread and that's whether jesus was real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really sad as ancient man believed in God for the same reasons.  Shit happened they didn't understand and then they die.  Lloyd the dumb fuck still thinks it is 2000bc.  For fuck sakes, THINK for once.

And don't summarize shit.  Just makes you look like the complete buffoon you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...