Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

Wait so you want be to "prove" that annoying word you keep using, that your god is impossible.  That can possibly be done. If you're using any of the classical theistic arguments the Christian god is easily debunked as they say.   If you've modified it in some way it may be impossible for me to do. 

The natural theology arguments have been around for centuries--even a millennium. Why do you think that is? Because they are easily debunked? Besides, they all deal with metaphysics so I doubt you fully understand them, because, you know, metaphysics is bullshit. (BTW, thank you for that great quote)

But it's also irrelevant.  You're the one mistaken.  If you're using an inductive argument you "proove" a god could exist.  Well then we're in agreement.  I don't think a god could not exist it depends on how you define such a thing.  However that does not make belief in such a thing reasonable without evidence.  As @unfogged pointed out we're not talking about what might have been.  We're talking about what is. Big difference.  If you want to make inductive arguments about the possibility of the existence of your god them you can abandon your claims of evidence.  That's only required if you're talking about what is.  Which is a scientific claim

This whole paragraph seems disjointed and confused, but I think you are saying that inductive arguments don't need evidence or that if I use an inductive argument, somehow magically the premises transform into non-evidence. Either way, you don't know what you are talking about.

"Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Every premise in my argument would be a piece of evidence no matter what format I put it in or no format at all. It would just be a list of evidence.

You need to pick a ball game and stick to it.  Also your insults are cute.  But hardly relevant or accurate.  Try harder.

Edit: Also if you were making some specious argument about if a god could exist you could have been more clear at the onset.  I have no interest in wasting time in mindless speculation.

I don't know what you talking about--at all.

Understanding and caring are two different things. That I have no need for metaphysics is not the point of ridicule you think it is.


You're correct your argument doesn't need evidence. You do realize this yes? Why do you care? It's a concept that exists in your mind. Has nothing to do with the real world. When you decide to come back to the real world, do bring some actual evidence and not hearsay combined with circular arguments for us to consider. Until then you don't need to wave around bad arguments as if they are somehow evidence for what happens in reality.

"Every premise in my argument would be a piece of evidence no matter what format I put it in or no format at all. It would just be a list of evidence. "

Wrong. Really we need @WhiskeyDebates to take this one on.... I could hardly do it proper justice. So get your new keyboard dammit


It seems like you're trying to drag us back to a pre enlightenment period of thought. Just like you can not define a pink unicorn into existence, a syllogistic argument does is not evidence for the existence of a god. At best it could tell you one of a limited number of things.

1. That such a god may be possible (evidence still required for confirmation before belief in such is warranted)
2. That you're missing an important factor (which you wouldn't know because you're not relying on sound methodology for understanding the world, which is why I have no interest in metaphysics, I fully understand how our methodologies and justifications were originally born from or more accurately evolved from syllogism and philosophy which you like to conflate with metaphysics even though the two are distinctly different things, however I have no need for it. I deal with what is. I leave philosophy to the likes of Sam Harris. This is after all why I study Computer Science dude, I have my focus and interest and it's not yours that does not warrant you're insults. Especially when you keep refusing to deal with my fucking points /endrant)
3. Your premise is wrong (hint it's number 3)

In a syllogistic argument as you're constructing then yes if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, however you are abusing this. Try making a syllogistic argument for the existence of a second invisible sun revolving the earth then maybe you'd see what it is you're doing.

We keep poking at your premises saying they are wrong. thus the conclusion is wrong. and you keep saying no they are right because they are in your argument (circular reasoning much?), combined with actual appeals to authority where you don't justify your claims instead asserting that people believe the bible is accurate even the atheists (which is factually not correct and we've pointed this out) thus your premises are true. Factually incorrect. Then you got the balls to accuse me of making an argument from authority when I simply pointed out that you are wrong that the majority of modern scholarship thinks you're wrong, combined with my own reasoning and justifications avoids an argument from authority. BECAUSE my position was not based on their work, simply referenced. Do you honestly find yourself incapable of understanding this or are you just completely dishonest?

Edit: Pick a ball and stick with it, is an accusation that you continually redefine the game aka move the goalposts. AKA you're being dishonest in this discussion. If it is unintentional then you need to be made aware so you can stop doing it. If it is intentional then you need to piss off. Dishonesty is not gonna fly well here.

@EvieTheAvocado I'm done playing nice with this dishonest little shit. Deal with it.