"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f3bep35lqn0fhf08ka64l89faiu8augj8p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
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
> Bull****,
I'm sorry .. don't you follow the rules of logical argument?
> Why do you imagine there's anything to doubt?
Why do you imagine there is nothing to doubt?
> You're equating believing something without evidence
> with not believing it because there's no evidence,
That's right .. argumentum ad ignorantium .. it works both ways.
You cannot say something is true without evidence nor can you say it is
false .. only that it is unproven.
Now.. if there were no evidence where you could expect there should be,
then
that lack is itself evidence. For example, the lack of any contem****ary
re****ts of any of the 'miraclous' thing that are supposed to have happened
in biblical accounts.
That is strong evidence that such things did not happen.
However, a lack of writing about some obscure peasant wandering the
dessert
with maybe a handful of followers, doing nothing of any great significance
at the time, is *not* evidence that such a person did not exists.
I don't see why you are so strenuously opposed to the possibility that
there
was someone called Jesus at the time of the biblical Jesus who did nothing
particularly extraordinary. What is it you are afraid of by admitting
that
it is possible. There is certainly no reason to say it is impossible
(unlike the 'miracles' that supposedly happened). Your prejudice is as
great as those of the theists
|
