Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
And I am quite satisfied with how my other thread you cited went, I hope people would read it.
Click to expand...
You are satisfied that you were p4wned from the outset?

Isn't masochism some sort of sin?
 
DOC said:
Actually it's not an argument from incredulity when you compare "two" points of view. If one argument seems more absurd than another, than it is logical to believe that the less absurd sounding point of view is more likely to be correct than the more absurd one.
Click to expand...


No, it is an argument from incredulity because you are saying since you can't believe it, it must not be true. There is no evidence that you even understand what it is you are discussing, and there is hard evidence that you refuse to learn (when volatile offered to purchase you books on the subject, you made excuses and other waffle).

The others who discussed this topic didn't have such a handicap.

And I am quite satisfied with how my other thread you cited went, I hope people would read it.
Click to expand...


Hmm, maybe I should offer another challenge. I will read and comment on a website or book of your choice if you agree to read and comment on Simon Singh's Big Bang. If you agree, I will start another thread for this.
 
DOC said:
Actually it's not an argument from incredulity when you compare "two" points of view. If one argument seems more absurd than another, than it is logical to believe that the less absurd sounding point of view is more likely to be correct than the more absurd one.
Click to expand...
No. Your idea of "absurd" is anything too complicated for DOC to understand. Your ignorance does not make your Argument from Incredulity any more relevant or less stupid.
And I am quite satisfied with how my other thread you cited went, I hope people would read it.
Click to expand...
Wow. Talk about delusional.
 
It was named by someone who didn't believe in it.
Distinguished and controversial British astronomer, mathematician, popularizer of science, and novelist, who rejected the 'big bang' theory. "Every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom had a beginning, but the universe itself did not," Hoyle claimed. He coined the phrase "big bang" to mock the opposing model, according to which the universe originated from a spontaneous explosion. Hoyle also suggested that life had a cosmic, not terrestrial origin, and viruses could originate from certain meteor streams. He supported the anthropic principle, holding that there is a design in creation: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. "Our existence dictates how the universe shall be," he stated, and added, "a fine ego-boosting point of view on which you may travel, fare paid, to conferences all over the world." Besides scientific works, Hoyle published many science fiction novels, written in collaboration with his son, Geoffrey Hoyle.
Click to expand...
But since it was named, many many many more astronomers see that it explains a lot more then it doesn't.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
DOC said:
Actually it's not an argument from incredulity when you compare "two" points of view. If one argument seems more absurd than another, than it is logical to believe that the less absurd sounding point of view is more likely to be correct than the more absurd one.

And I am quite satisfied with how my other thread you cited went, I hope people would read it.
Click to expand...
So am I. But then again, I wasn't the one who had their butt handed to them.
 
Hokulele said:
Hmm, maybe I should offer another challenge. I will read and comment on a website or book of your choice if you agree to read and comment on Simon Singh's Big Bang. If you agree, I will start another thread for this.
Click to expand...

This would be very interesting.. But given the fact that DOC couldn't even be bothered to listen to an NPR interview, why would you think he'd read a whole book?
 
joobz said:
This would be very interesting.. But given the fact that DOC couldn't even be bothered to listen to an NPR interview, why would you think he'd read a whole book?
Click to expand...
He could play KK's game of claim to have read the book, say it is nonsense but refuse to say anything about why that conclusion was made and instead talk about how dejected/poor/pathetic you are.
 
joobz said:
This would be very interesting.. But given the fact that DOC couldn't even be bothered to listen to an NPR interview, why would you think he'd read a whole book?
Click to expand...
Maybe he could watch a ten-minute video?

youTube: The Evidence For The Big Bang In 10 Little Minutes
philhellenes said:
Yes, I dumbed-down, but sometimes that helps people understand...

...AND it's the only way I know. :)

Recommended reading:

"In Search Of The Big Bang" by John Gribbin.
"The Alchemy Of The Heavens" by Ken Croswell.
"The Whole Shebang" by Timothy Ferris.
"Big Bang" by Simon Singh.
"The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg.
Click to expand...
 
Hokulele said:
No, it is an argument from incredulity because you are saying since you can't believe it, it must not be true. There is no evidence that you even understand what it is you are discussing, and there is hard evidence that you refuse to learn (when volatile offered to purchase you books on the subject, you made excuses and other waffle).

The others who discussed this topic didn't have such a handicap.

Hmm, maybe I should offer another challenge. I will read and comment on a website or book of your choice if you agree to read and comment on Simon Singh's Big Bang. If you agree, I will start another thread for this.
Click to expand...


Oh, goodie!

:popcorn1
 
paximperium said:
He could play KK's game of claim to have read the book, say it is nonsense but refuse to say anything about why that conclusion was made and instead talk about how dejected/poor/pathetic you are.
Click to expand...
That was basically his tactic with Ehrman. except instead of reading it, he simply relied on the information we provided to dismiss him. The conversation basically went.
To paraphrase:
US:Ehrman claimed that none of the gospels except Luke say Jesus was god.
DOC:But What about "Son of God"
US: Ehrman explains that jews didn't use "Son of God" to mean the actual son of god.
DOC: Well, I don't believe that and I won't bother with learning the facts of this. So, I won't listen to anything else that Ehrman has to say.
 
kurious_kathy said:
There is pleanty of evidence for the New Testament Doc but many here on jref just seem to not have an ear to hear. It does make me very sad but I will encourage you to keep up the good fight of faith. I myself am sold out for Christ come what may! Jesus is Lord!!
Click to expand...

And here she is again, fans! God's favorite cheerleader!

:wave1
:cheerleader2:cheerleader4:cheerleader1:cheerleader3:cheerleader5
:woowoo

I find it funny that even DOC ignores her completely.
 
joobz said:
This would be very interesting.. But given the fact that DOC couldn't even be bothered to listen to an NPR interview, why would you think he'd read a whole book?
Click to expand...


Hope springs eternal. This is the fourth time I have offered such a challenge to three different evangelists on this forum. So far, only KK has actually accepted the challenge, although she seems to have failed to uphold her end of the bargain.

You would almost think that they are afraid to learn something...
 
paximperium said:
Wait a minute...you mean you are not a Jewish Cannibal?
Click to expand...


Not that I am aware of. DOC seems to have thought otherwise. And strangely enough, for all his talk of insults and apologies, he has never acknowledged my corrections or apologized for making unbased assumptions. Go figure.

I'm disappointing...:(
Click to expand...


Oh, the fun that could be had with this typo. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom