On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:34 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"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.
Strange planet you live on.
>[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
Bull****,
Why do you imagine there's anything to doubt?
You're equating believing something without evidence with not
believing it because there's no evidence,
>[snip more]
>
|
