"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2m6dp3l7uthq8k4kua54hbbi47a7pl7am1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:39:37 -0600, Midwinter
> <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>
>>>>It is a rationalisation in the sense that I am appealing for
>>>>rationality. As I said, there is little reason to deny the
>>>>possibility of his existence as a man - that a man might have existed
>>>>is, as I said, nothing out of the ordinary and does not in itself
>>>>stretch the bounds of physical possibility or imply the existence of
>>>>God.
>>>
>>> More im****tantly, there is nothing that leads to the conclusion that
>>> there was one.
>>
>>No indeed. However, as I said, the possibility of Jesus having existed
>>as a man strains no-one's perception of the possible, and thus is a
>>neither-here-nor-there issue. Where the question is something that's in
>>violation of our view of how the world works it's fair to argue that if
>>it can't be proved it probably doesn't exist. Where it's something that
>>is entirely in accordance with that understanding, then a lack of
>>evidence doesn't give us reason to discount the possibility.
>
> Unfortunately that's not the methodology used for the rest of the
> world.
Yes .. it is acutally.
[snip]
> No. Lack of evidence suggests there is no reason to believe in an
> historical Jesus.
Nor any reason to doubt it. it works both ways. Agumentum Ad ignorantium
[snip more]
|
