We have /his/torical proof of miracles at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most recent known are reported by apowerful convergence of eight early sources, citing eyewitnesses and even physical evidence, which report clearly miraculous fire and a star like a cross that marked clothes with its energy halting Emperor Julian's plan to rebuild the Jewish Temple in 363 AD.They report that the Temple couldn't be built by the Pagans and Jews because flames burst from its foundations when they tried, and there was a star or other object in the sky like a cross that both marked and astonished the workmen.1 Ammianus Marcellinus. You can read his account here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D23%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D3. He was a non-Christian and a contemporary of Julian the Apostate. He wrote:"terrifying balls of flame kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple, and made the place inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the enterprise halted"And Gregory Nazianzen, who knew Emperor Julian personally, wrote just months after the event according to https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_3_oration5.htm:"But what is yet more strange and more conspicuous, there stood in the heavens a light circumscribing a Cross...Let those who were spectators and partakers of that prodigy exhibit their garments, which to the present time are stamped with the brandmarks of the Cross! For at the very moment that anyone, either of our own brethren or of the outsiders, was telling the event or hearing it told by others, he beheld the miracle happening in his own case or to his neighbour, being all spotted with stars, or beholding the other so marked upon his clothes in a manner more variegated than could be done by any artificial work of the loom or elaborate painting”.
Nice fanfic, schizo.Ammianus doesn't mention any cross. He says fires from the foundations. That's not a miracle. Fucking underground gas pocket or sewer fire. SHIT HAPPENS.Gregory was a buttmad christian bishop whose entire career was shitting on julian. He is not a reliable source and a propagandist.Stars on their clothes is either bullshit or mass hysteria. No physical evidence exists, just his word. Where are these magic clothes now? Conveniently gone.The eight sources are all later christian copists echoing each other. It is a telephone game and religious conspiracy to rewrite history.The project failed because of an earthquake (attested) and julian getting killed in battle. No gods or miracles needed.
>>18087465Debunked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qZ4qzDICg
>>18087601The more pressing issue for me is that the entire temple and 4th century sect of "judaism" was restarted by pagans. Everything after that is a sham.
>>18087501>Ammianus doesn't mention any cross.Other sources do, and even cite eyewitnesses and physical evidence for it. Take for instance Theodoret who, similarly, would have been a contemporary with the men who worked on this project. You can read his account at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27023.htm. He writes: “Julian...began by enquiring of some whom he got together why, though their law imposed on them the duty of sacrifices, they offered none. On their reply that their worship was limited to one particular spot...gave directions for the re-erection of the destroyed temple...The Jews heard his words with delight and made known his orders to their countrymen throughout the world. They came with haste from all directions, contributing alike money and enthusiasm for the work; and the emperor made all the provisions he could...fire running from the excavated foundations burnt up most of the diggers, and put the rest to flight...On that night and also on the following night the sign of the cross of salvation was seen brightly shining in the sky, and the very garments of the Jews were filled with crosses, not bright but black...Julian heard of these events, for they were repeated by every one.”Another great source. Contemporary with the men who would have worked on this, and tells us that Julian knew of the events as well.We even have eyewitnesses and physical evidence cited for this. Such as by Sozomen, who cites them. He would have been a contemporary with men who worked on this project. His report can be read at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm. He writes:"the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art...If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive".
>>18087501>Fucking underground gas pocket or sewer fireThere's no level on which this works. To get repeated and sustained blasts which are powerful enough to kill multiple people you need an ENORMOUS amount of methane gas. Even in modern times, have we seen methane do something like what happened at the Temple? Anywhere? Ever?Saying it was from sewer waste doesn't make any sense. The Temple had been destroyed for three hundred years. Even if there was secretly a titanic (and I do mean utterly TITANIC for an explosion like this to happen even once) dump of organic waste at its foundations, the gas would have dispersed into the atmosphere as it was produced, and certainly during the three hundred years since the Temple was there!And it's completely inexplicable that it "kept bursting forth" as Ammianus Marcellinus reports. It all would have come out at once in a single blast even under this essentially physically impossible scenario.Unless you're positing that a civilization of Mole Men was secretly using it as a dump for their underground metropolis then no, there is no possibility of enough waste at the temple's foundations to produce explosive quantities of methane! The Temple hadn't even been there for hundreds of years, it was destroyed in 70 AD.Jerusalem produces WAY more waste today and that doesn't somehow get underground and make the Dome of the Rock (which is what's at the site now) have a methane risk.
>>18087501>Gregory was a buttmad christian bishop whose entire career was shitting on julian. He is not a reliable source and a propagandist.Picture a world where we didn't have Ammianus Marcellinus reporting the flames; say he didn't discuss the event at all and focused instead only on Julian's Persian expedition. Wouldn't you be trying to dismiss that part of the report for this same reason?But we know it's a fact since Ammianus Marcellinus corroborates it. It's not surprising he doesn't talk about the Cross Star since that's more or less impossible to fit with a non-Christian worldview. But there was even physical evidence for it.>Stars on their clothes is either bullshitThe ultimate defeater of that is physical evidence, and that's what the event produced. Caused, as our sources tell us, by a cross-shaped glowing object in the night sky.>or mass hysteriaHm? >Where are these magic clothes now? Conveniently gone.Anon this was in a ancient Rome! We only have ONE surviving Roman shield today: https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/5959. If ancient Roman scutum, build to endure battle and standard issue for their vast military, didn't make it to us except in one example, how is it some "conveniently gone" when damaged clothing doesn't?
>>18087501>are all later christian copists All of them are contemporaries either with the event or men who participated in it, Ammianus Marcellinus isn't a Christian, and "later"? Anon according to the footnotes there in Gregory Nazianzen's account, this was “written but a few months after the occurrence”! So it’s as early as early gets. And Ephrem the Syrian is another extremely early source, writing less than a year after the events: the Temple’s failed reconstruction took place in 363 AD, the same year Emperor Julian died, and as https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583993 says, "Ephraem wrote these...in the very year of Julian's death, after he saw the emperor's embalmed corpse". As can be read at https://studylib.net/doc/25971649/--a-companion-to-julian-the-apostate----libgen.li, pages 284-285, he wrote: "fire came forth and consumed the scribes" who attempted to rebuild the Temple. Trying to argue the sources are late absolutely cannot work here.>and religious conspiracyThat non-Christians are reporting as well?>and julian getting killed in battleThe Temple's construction failed before that. Theodoret who, similarly, would have been a contemporary with the men who worked on this project. You can read his account at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27023.htm. He writes: “On that night and also on the following night the sign of the cross of salvation was seen brightly shining in the sky, and the very garments of the Jews were filled with crosses, not bright but black...Julian heard of these events, for they were repeated by every one.”So Julian himself was aware of the events, so they cannot be after his death.
>>18087813Just noticed your name. <3
I've come across a few claims online that some of the Jews attributed the fire to Christians engaging in arson, which seems like a reasonable suspicion, though so far I haven't found a historical source for that claim.
>>18087877This doesn't seem possible, to make "terrifying balls of flame kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple" be the case, you would need something like gunpowder, which of course wouldn't exist for 1000 years. Look at the historian Sozomen's report (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm) - "all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen.This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth...If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it."The only person who could do sabotage like this would be a time traveler with landmines!
>>18088390Nta, but do you even realize that your whole argument only works on someone who places a higher prior probability on magic rather than people making shit up?
>>18088399Can you define "magic"?
Besides, methane gas doesn't even begin to explain the magic burnt clothingor the chariots and warriors in the sky .....Do you understand that when someone is granting you a fact for the sake of argument, they are not necessarily granting you everything probably the gas explanation, isn't trying to explain the fantastic fireballs you're imagining but some tiny fires that got exaggerated and embellished, to the stories we find in history
>>18088407Magic is when something is extremely holy and the nature doesn't behave like it usually does
>>18088407Irrelevant to the point. You know what I'm talking about, you're merely trying to throw up a smokescreen because you don't want to answer the question.
>>18088419>but some tiny firesIf they were tiny then they would be incapable of halting a massive Imperial construction project of utmost importance to both Emperor Julian and the Jews.>>18088425If your definition is "nature doesn't behave like it usually does" then it wouldn't apply here. Extremely holy things are simply an aspect of the natural world not often encountered. But when you find them - like a very holy man like Jesus or the Apostles, or a very holy building like the Temple - then these things are naturally protected. Hence Jesus being resurrected from unholy death and the Temple being prevented from being constructed in an unholy way. Much like matter and antimatter, the very holy and the unholy can have quite explosive reactions. Literally, in the case of the Temple!>>18088427>You know what I'm talking aboutIndeed I do. You have an undefinable phantom concept you're attempting to use in place of actual arguments. It's too nebulous to do so.
>>18088441>Indeed I do. You have an undefinable phantom concept you're attempting to use in place of actual arguments. It's too nebulous to do so.The Christian once again dishonestly obfuscate to defend his nonsense. Typical.
>>18088444All you need to do to disprove my point is explain what specifically "magic" is and list some objective criteria something must meet to be considered "magic".
>>18088465I could, but I am not going to do it because I am not stupid and it's obvious to me that you are merely trying to duck my point about prior probabilities.Christians are very dishonest people.
>define magicWe're clearly talking about whatever power you think causes the fireballs and chariots in the sky to appear, and it's not like you've explain how any of that is supposed to workthat is what's meant by the word magic
I don't need to know what magic is, for fireballs to be magic, btw
>>18088470>I couldGo on then.I think you're already aware of the problem: the moment you lay out objective criteria and make this go from a nebulous handwave to something solid, it will get torn to shreds.>>18088483In that case you're talking about God, so it becomes circular reasoning: "I reject evidence for God because I don't believe in God. I don't believe in God because I reject evidence for God. I reject evidence for God because...".
>>18088494>In that case you're talking about GodThe heck is a God? This is the first time you've brought this up as part of your explanation. You can't just keep introducing new concepts
>>18088494>Go on then.I already told you why I'm not going to do it. I know you're merely being dishonest because you don't want to answer my question about priors. Why would a rational actor ever answer an additional question under these circumstances before his own question gets answered?I'm not retarded.
>>18088511God is the being described in the Bible who was worshipped at this Temple: the omnipotent, best possible being with existence required by the laws of logic themselves who created all reality.See? Giving definitions and explanations isn't tough.
>>18088513I'll take this as a confession that you understand that any attempt to move your very thin argument from the realm of nebulous handwaves into something resembling a solid point would be suicidal, and that you see that it has force if and only if kept as an undefined and nearly meaningless handwave.In which case I'll conclude our discussion unless your next reply contains an actual definition or some objective criteria.
>>18088521>I'll take this asIn other words, you make up shit about me because you're a dishonest rat. And why should I provide additional answers to a dishonest rat before it answers my initial question? It makes zero sense from a game theory perspective.Right now you're just trying to appeal to my vanity to make me concede that you don't need to answer my question.
>>18088518See, when you say God, that's something I'dd call magic. There were no need for definitions, we understood each other all along.I know the Jews made up a story about a guy with the superpower to do anything.Your explanation is that he is real, and used his superpowers to cause fireballs at the temple? Why do you think that's more probable than people making up stories?Honestly just sounds insane to meThis is probably what the other guy meant by "only works on someone who places a higher prior probability on magic rather than people making shit up"Honestly you should just drop the whole Temple thing. It doesn't matter, it's not relevant.You need to get people to think God is more plausible than people making up stories, for any of this to get off the ground. That should be you focus.
>>18088518>existence required by the laws of logic themselvesShow me the logical necessity of a triune god. Why couldn't it have been two persons like a lot of christians believed?
>>18088545In other words, by "magic" you mean "that which is like what God does", so your entire line of argument is no argument at all. It's just you restating that you're an atheist.In that case we know for a fact there must be something "magical" which "when something is extremely holy and the nature doesn't behave like it usually does". A fundamental feature of the natural world is the second law of thermodynamics: total potential usable energy always decreases from every physical interaction. So the energy our world has must have come in the first place from nature not behaving the way it usually does. In nature, no physical action results in an increase in total usable energy in the system. So usable energy itself can't ultimately come from nature behaving as it usually does.It can only come from something you would label "magic".So we know for an absolute fact that the world must contain "magic" - indeed, contain it as the fundamental force that made it. This massively amps up the "prior probability".
>>18088577>argument for god secretly requires one to believe god existslol, lmao even
>>18088564If God is omnipotent then he is Trinitarian by logical necessity. Check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNn5QU-Py18 it explains it quickly and well in under a minute. Note that by "Trinitarian" I would mean "has hypostases": I don't believe it's necessarily three but could be two or four or however many a specific situation might call for, just like that video explains.>Why couldn't it have been two persons like a lot of christians believed?"Binitarianism", I suppose we'd call it, is super rare. Virtually no one holds to it since it's explicitly a Trinity, see pic related. Those who deny that would almost universally be Unitarians. I don't know of any organized "Binitarian" denomination or movement. It's simply too explicit about both the Holy Ghost and the Son in pic related.
>>18088588>argument for god secretly requires one to believe god exists...I really don't understand what point you're attempting to make. Could you rephrase?
>>18088593So the contention with the argument was that it requires one to have a higher prior for god than people lying. Your response was that because of a different argument, people should already believe in god anyway. This reaffirms the criticism that this argument is toothless against people who don't have a higher prior for god than for people lying and demonstrates that this argument is toothless to these people.
>>18088610The "prior" for God is 100%. His existence is absolutely required, as the post proved. You're essentially saying "I would never find a historical argument for God's existence persuasive since I think any combination of lies from any combination of sources is more likely than God existing". If that's how you feel then we can take a look at something else first that establishes that God does indeed exist.>and demonstrates that this argument is toothless to these people.To people who insist that they will never accept a historical argument as evidence for God? Well yeah. If you've already made that decision in your mind then of course you won't accept a historical argument. I think that amounts to irrationally plugging your ears and saying "nope nope nope I don't care someone is lying nope nope nope", but if that's what someone wants to do no one's gonna stop them.You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink, as they say.
>>18088590>I don't believe it's necessarily threeThen your god's existence isn't necessary. I am not watching a video use your own words. What exactly is a hypostases according to you? Everyone has a different idea of what that is.>Virtually no one holds to it since it's explicitly a TrinityWho cares about numbers? It's fallacious to think something is true because of how many people believe in it.>It's simply too explicit about both the Holy Ghost and the Son in pic related.No it isn't. Your facebook meme is not evidence of anything. Why didn't you just quote the bible passage? Early Christians didn't even know if the Holy Spirit was a person and they read the text better than both of us
>>18088631You're literally just reiterating that this argument does not work to convince anyone who has a higher prior probability for people lying than for god.So it's an argument that only really works on people who already believe in god. That's fine and all, but why would you try to use such an argument when talking to atheists? This thing can only possibly work on believers in other faiths or some undefined theism. I just don't understand your thought process here.
God is a bad theory because it can be used to explain just about any given occurrence, and something that can explain anything predicts nothing in particular. If something happens, you can dream up a motive for why God would've wanted it happen. If something fails to happen, you can dream up a motive for why God wouldn't have wanted it to happen. If we remained satisfied with God as explanation for the weather, we likely wouldn't have made any progress in being able to predict it. So in the interest of having theories that are actually useful, we prefer to constrain them to principles that can be confirmed by repetition or inferred from those that can be confirmed by repetition, and we only very reluctantly admit novel principles into the set.Now between, on the one hand, people lying, a story being exaggerated over time from something less mysterious to something more mysterious, or perhaps some rare physical phenomenon, and, on the other hand, a miraculous non-repeatable disruption of the natural order by a hypothetical all-powerful entity who decided to produce some fireballs, which hand should we prefer? The first includes things that everyone knows happen. People lie, stories get exaggerated over time, sometimes nature does stuff that looks weird but if it's repeatable it turns out to be explainable mechanistically. It doesn't require admitting any additional principles based on a non-repeatable phenomena. The second, however does require admitting an additional principle based on a non-repeatable phenomenon, and we get no predictive gains from doing so since, as said, God can be used to explain anything.
>>18087737Right, those who claim to be Jews today have no connection to the ancient or biblical Jews or Israel.
>>18088639>Then your god's existence isn't necessary.This is a very bizarre sentence. Does the Bible somewhere say the Father has and always has had and always will have two hypostases and never more or fewer? >What exactly is a hypostases according to you? Everyone has a different idea of what that is.To clarify things, in religious studies, "hypostasis" is a term that means "attribute of a deity which takes quasi-independent action".For instance https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37982/SIMONE-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf?sequence=1is a very interesting study of whether fire in the Old Testament is ever hypostatic, saying "this research project will investigate whether any of these instances of fire show the characteristics of a hypostasis. In other words, does fire ever appear as an abstract attribute of Yahweh that has achieved partial or complete independence from him?" andhttps://www.tektonics.org/film/trinfilm.htmlsays "The background with Wisdom Christology is found in the concept of hypostasis. What is a hypostasis? Broadly defined, it is a quasi-personification of attributes proper to a deity, occupying an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings".https://journals.ekb.eg/article_192787_5823b123eb7dfa41a34691c8a324b24a.pdf is a good example of how the term is used in Egyptology: "This analogy between dwarfs and scarabs occurs again in a maxim in the Ptolemaic instruction text of Papyrus Insinger; both beings are invoked as hypostases of a major god, Re or Horus: ‘The small scarab [is great] through its secret image, the small dwarf is great because of his name’".>Who cares about numbers?You seemed to be of the opinion that this was a well-represented position, but there aren't any groups that hold to it. I can't even think of any historically that clearly did.
Do you expect people to be mindreaders and just know that you're a presup? Are you incapable of having a conversation without wasting as much time possible dicking around?You know presup is uncommon. So open with that, that this conversation is presupposing the Trinitarian Christian God, lmao Again. Temple not the issue. Temple not relevant at all.Like squeezing water from a rock, to get to the real issue I'm not a presup. Now what do we do? Guess the conversations just end. Agree to disagree.
>>18088639>Your facebook meme is not evidence of anything. Why didn't you just quote the bible passage? Anon the pic is a quote of the Bible passage, it's simply Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:".>Early Christians didn't even know if the Holy Spirit was a person and they read the text better than both of usCan you quote an early Christian saying this?
>>18088671The purpose of presup is to troll atheists. HIding that you're a presup helps with that.
>>18088642You're not making any sort of actual counter-argument to my argument. Not disputing any of the facts, not attempting to say any part is in error. You're simply saying that you don't find it persuasive.You don't present any actual evidence for someone lying, you just say that to you, you think that's more likely. There's no argument here, you're just talking about your personal preferences.
>>18088680So again, do you agree this argument can only work on people who have a higher prior probability for god than for people lying? That's the core of this issue. Until you answer this question, we are not moving anywhere.
>>18088679>The purpose of presup is to troll atheists.An atheist is someone who presupposes no God, so this really is a pointless assertion to make.
I don't get it. Even if we're gullible as fuck and believe in ghosts and goblins and gods.There's still no reason to automatically prefer God as an explanation, when people making up stories literally accounts for all the data.This only becomes rational if you think people making up stories is less probable. Which is moronic.
>>18088687The argument should work on anybody who takes historical evidence seriously. Anyone rational should see this evidence and conclude that God exists, and is the God worshipped in this Temple.
>>18088688BRAAAAAAAAAAP
>>18088695Why couldn't someone just conclude that there's a minor evil spirit responsible for some of the stuff in the Abrahamic religions rather than an all powerful, all knowing entity who is the creator of the universe?
>>18087501>it's just swamp gas, goy
>>18088695>Anyone rational should see this evidence and conclude that God exists, and is the God worshipped in this Temple.But you define "rational person" as someone who already agrees with your youtube shorts arguments and therefore believes god exist prior to seeing this temple argument. You think anyone who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying is not rational.So again, do you agree this argument can only work on people who have a higher prior probability for god than for people lying?
>>18088695Evidently it doesn't do that, thoughHow do you explain away the fireballs lack of persuasive power? "People who disagree with me are irrational", "Noetic effect of sin", "They just haven't heard it yet" ???
>>18088664>Does the BibleWho cares? You're invoking the laws of logic. Your god as he is right now is not necessary by your own admission.>attribute of a deity which takes quasi-independent actionWhat do you mean by quasi-independent? Those who do not believe in occasionalism and are unitarian seem to satisfy this.>quasi-personification of attributes proper to a deityWhat do you mean by quasi-personification? The persons in the trinity are full blown persons.>You seemed to be of the opinion that this was a well-represented positionNo of course not but that doesn't matter and it also doesn't change the fact that "Many Church of God binitarians (see below) believe their Christology perspective most accurately reflects that of the "original" Jewish Christians. Certain scholars have noted that "earliest Christian worship specifies two figures, God and Jesus, as recipients"[2] and that early rabbis considered early Christianity to be binitarian.[3]">>18088672>Anon the pic is a quote of the Bible passageYes with atrocious formatting and your own inserted ideas that are not found in the text.>Can you quote an early Christian saying this?"But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htm
...and then these events never happened again once cameras were invented
>>18088701Because Christianity is true, duh
>>18088701You might as well say "Why couldn't someone just conclude that the Matrix is responsible for some of the stuff in the Abrahamic religions rather than an all powerful, all knowing entity who is the creator of the universe?". Or their dream, or the aliens running a simulation, or the scientists running the experiment where your brain is in a vat getting fed false data about the world, or random matter collisions generating a Boltzmann brain that happens to be getting all your memories and experiences purely by coincidence, all of which are false. You can posit undetectable sensory deceivers for anything.
>>18088716I think all of those theories would be more constrained and so more vulnerable to testing than blaming God.
>>18088706I would define a rational person in this context as someone with a consistent and accurate standard for evaluating historical evidence.Any such person will conclude based on the evidence that these events genuinely took place.>>18088708>People who disagree with me are irrationalThis but unironically. Counter-arguments based on facts have been completely abandoned in this thread and now people are appealing to what amounts to simulation theory.
>>18088712They have so many artifacts that were magical but not anymore after cameras were invented>But among the rest, there was also another of the minsters, which was called the Church of my Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, within which was the shroud wherein Our Lord was wrapped. And on every Friday that shroud did raise itself upright, so that the form of Our Lord could clearly be seen. And none knows – neither Greek nor Frank – what became of that shroud when the city was taken.>Robert di Clari's account of Constantinople during the Fourth Cruade
>>18088720Can a person who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying be rational?Would this argument work on such a person?
>>18088720You appealed to what amounts to simulation theory by proposing God as an explanation.
>>18088716You just don't get it. I literally find Christianity as unlikely and made-up as those things you make fun of. YOU are the guy making up bullshit explanations from my point of view Christianity don't have a higher epistemic status, just because you are a Christian You need to try to understand how fake all this sounds to people who have not been indoctrinated into Christianity.
>>18088720>people who disagree with me are genuinely irrationalLove how you're so narcissistic you wouldn't for 1 second even entertain the thought that your argument got some mistake to it.Or the even more modest possibility, that your assessment of it's persuasive power was mistaken Not just this thread, this information is avaiable to everyoneEveryone except you, and the people who agree with you, are irrational.
>>18087465>physical evidencecool, where is it?
>>18088745Ink on paper, bro
>>18088710Are you trying to make this a discussion about the Trinity? If so, what angle are you coming at it from? Muslim, non-Trinitarian Christian, what specifically?>Who cares? You're invoking the laws of logic. Your god as he is right now is not necessary by your own admission.This seems to reflect ignorance of the very basic matters of what logical necessity even is. Logical necessity is and can only be about eternal truths, by definition logically necessary truths do not and cannot vary over time. What is logically necessary is that an omnipotent being has hypostases. Does this extend to the number of hypostases? That's an open question.>What do you mean by quasi-independent?Quasi means "sorta kinda, but not really".>What do you mean by quasi-personification? Anon that was a quote from a scholar about what this term means, "broadly defined".>Many Church of God binitariansChurch of God (the sects you're talking about) are bitheists, no binitarians. They believe they're separate beings altogether. Generally speaking.>earliest Christian worship specifies two figures, God and Jesus, as recipientsWhat early Christian appears to have been a Binitarian, to you?>early rabbis considered early Christianity to be binitarianWhat Rabbi and what specifically did he say?>and your own inserted ideas It's a straight quote from the passage. What was "inserted"?>https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htmGregory Nanzianzen certainly wasn't in the dark about it. Again: can you quote an early Christian actually saying he doesn't know if the Holy Spirit is a person or not?
Think my priors in miracles just are so low, that I will never be convinced of a miracle from historical evidence (ink on paper, scrolls, papyrus/whatever - oral tradition)Because I will always think that people making stuff up is a more probable explanation of why we got the evidence we do - ink on paper, people telling stories about miracles to have happened That doesn't mean I couldn't come to believe in the supernatural. Objects start flying around in my room, would get me thinking real hard about poltergeists, etc.I'm just saying historical evidence alone wouldn't get me there.Hate to say it. But I genuinely think what it would take for me to come to believe in miracles from historical evidence, is for my priors to be different.That's the only way I see this working.
>>18088775Learn to track. No I want to know why you believe your magical being is logically necessary when you said he wasn't. And I also want you to explain in your own words why hypostases are necessary. Once you have finished actually demonstrationg your claim then we can get back on track.>Logical necessity is and can only be about eternal truths, by definition logically necessary truths do not and cannot vary over time. "Does the Bible somewhere say the Father has and always has had and always will have two hypostases and never more or fewer?" So you believe that it's possible for the number of persons to vary over time you even call it an open question. The very fact it's not a hard requirement for him to be unchanging means it's not logically necessary that he is the way he is right now. It doesn't matter if only parts of him are necessary, if anything about your god isn't then he isn't necessary. It's not hard to follow. Classical theists will never come to the conclusion that their god is 3 in 1 based on pure logic alone. You too had to resort to your interpretation of the bible>Quasi means "sorta kinda, but not really"You're either independent or you aren't. What part of Jesus is independent from the Father and why is this a logically necessity?>Anon that was a quote from a scholar about what this term meansA shit definition that raises more questions than it solves. What does it mean?>bitheistsAnd trinitarians are tritheists in denial. Why are you diverting with these tangential topics go read the article yourself and follow the citations.>What was "inserted"?Your implications that this teaches your specific god>Gregory Nanzianzen certainly wasn't in the dark about itWhat does this mean? He is an early Christian speaking about other early Christians who did not believe the Holy Spirit was a person in the godhead.
>>18088728>Can a person who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying be rational?Let's put it to the test and see. Lay me out your standard for determining historical truth: how do you evaluate the truth or falsehood of a historical claim?If you, one such person, can keep consistent while rejecting the historical truth of these events, then the answer will apparently be yes.>Would this argument work on such a person?I find it odd that you want to talk about what will or won't convince people rather than the facts. People are convinced all the time by the weakest possible arguments up to and including even "I dreamed it", and fail to be convinced even by mathematical arguments whose truth is absolute logical certainty. In a world where Terryology exists, what someone will or won't find persuasive obviously has little to do with the strength or weakness of arguments.
>>18088729Only in the thin sense that simulated worlds are often thought of as being created by intelligent beings, just as a theistic world would be. But that's actually not necessarily the case: you can have a "simulation" where the observer is actually a Boltzmann brain and just happens to have your memories and experiences by pure random searching of the space of possible experiences.>>18088733>I literally find Christianity as unlikely and made-up as those things you make fun of.I wasn't making fun of them; I actually take concerns about Solipsism very seriously. But that's all your appeal to "it's actually a demon" actually winds up being. It's simply an instance of the fact that perfect deception is both logically possible and impossible to detect, so remains a possible explanation for any observation. A powerful demon, aliens, even random collisions producing a Boltzmann brain - any of these could always explain any observation. So bringing them up accomplishes nothing.
>>18088744>you're so narcissistic I'm Julian the Boss, baby>you wouldn't for 1 second even entertain the thought that your argument got some mistake to itwaste of a second
>>18089038>No I want to know why you believe your magical being is logically necessary when you said he wasn't.That's part of the definition of what I'm talking about when I talk about God. You asked for the definition of God, did you not? Proving he has logically required existence is a separate topic from using a word that refers to something that has logically required existence.>And I also want you to explain in your own words why hypostases are necessary.Think about a non-trinitarian God. One with no hypostases. Can this being walk?No, clearly it can't. The totality of itself couldn't be moved into its own creation and transported on two legs.Can this being breathe?Of course not. It has no lungs, and it isn't possible for something physical like air to be "where" God's core essence is.So there are things other beings have the power to do that this one does not. Meaning it is not omnipotent.But now say this God has a hypostasis: a part or aspect of himself that can take quasi-independent action. This being could walk: its hypostasis could take a form with legs. This being could breathe: its hypostasis could take a form with lungs.So if God is omnipotent, he must have such a part/aspect. Otherwise there would be possible things that he could not do.>It doesn't matter if only parts of him are necessary, if anything about your god isn't then he isn't necessary.There can easily be non-necessary truths about logical necessities. "The law of non-contradiction has been written about in books" is a non-necessary fact about the logically necessary law of non-contradiction, for instance.>You're either independent or you aren't.Can you provide an argument for independence being a binary rather than a gradient?
>>18089140Holy shit, you really can't answer even a single question.Anyway, I just got you to accidentally admit that either your definition of "rational person" excludes people who have a lower prior probability for god than for people lying, OR these people are capable of building a sufficient defense.Either way, your argument cannot convince such people./thread
>>18089038>A shit definition that raises more questions than it solves. What does it mean?Quasi is a modifier which means "kinda sorta, but not really".>go read the article yourself and follow the citationsAnd what will I find if I do that's of relevance?>Your implications that this teaches your specific godCan you highlight that in the picture?>What does this mean?It means he isn't an example. Can you actually quote a specific early Christian who himself says this?>speaking about other early Christians who did not believe the Holy Spirit was a person in the godhead.You can find some individuals in any movement with odd ideas. This has never been a prevalent and certainly not a mainstream notion. You can't even bring me an individual who actually says this himself and endorses a binitarian model.
>>18089211>your definition of "rational person" Was given in >>18088720 already in this context.>excludes people who have a lower prior probability for god than for people lyingNot necessarily. Such a person, if rational, would see this evidence and change their position.>OR these people are capable of building a sufficient defenseClearly not since you've abandoned any attempt to dispute with me about any actual fact and instead are just talking about who the argument would or wouldn't persuade. You've abandoned history completely and now you're into psychology (if we're being generous with our terminology).
>>18089221>Not necessarily. Such a person, if rational, would see this evidence and change their position.Great. Then tell me how this case can convince someone who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying. That's all you need to do.So again, if I have a lower prior probability for god than for people lying, how on earth should this be convincing to me?
This Jewlian the Ballstaste nigger really has an ego on him.
>>18089233>Then tell me how this case can convince someoneThey read it, think "wow, this is powerful evidence", and conclude it's true. Same as anything else. >how on earth should this be convincing to me?We have a vast array of contemporary sources, both Christian and non-Christian, reporting colossal public miracles concerning a huge Imperial project complete with eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Looking at all of the evidence, its difficult to think of how the historical case could even get any stronger. One of our main sources was even most likely written just months after the events. Extremely early reports about something extremely public are the gold standard.
>>18089241When you're both Emperor and boss, you've earned one
>>18089245>filtered
>>18089244>They read it, think "wow, this is powerful evidence", and conclude it's true. Same as anything else.Why would someone who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying think that? That's completely nonsensical.>We have a vast array of contemporary sources, both Christian and non-Christian, reporting colossal public miracles concerning a huge Imperial project complete with eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.So we have two candidate explanations:1)Jewish war god YHWH conjured some fireballs (insanely low prior probability)2)People lied (decent prior probability)Hm, seems like 2 is more likely with these prior probabilities.
>>18089271>Why would someone who has a lower prior probability for god than for people lying think that? Because they read the evidence here and see that chalking it up to lies doesn't work. Who lying? About what? You gonna say the workers were too lazy to build it so they went to the trouble of faking explosions before gunpowder and putting new stars in the sky?>Jewish war godI find this an odd thing people say. God constantly promises peace and clearly describes that as the desirable state. >insanely low prior probabilityHow do you figure?>People liedWho? And what lie did they tell, specifically?
>>18087465>the Templegood riddance to devil worshipers
>>18089285We can even make a maximalistic case for the sake of illustrating the principle. Let's say the lie hypothesis is that all our primary sources made up all they wrote about these supposed as a prank. This is a deliberately sloppy explanation, mind you. Remember, we're after the principle, and making things more extreme than they have to be often helps with that.So now we assign some values. They're not necessarily percentages, for now you can think of them as ratios.Maximalist lie hypothesis - 0.0001 (very implausible)YHWH fireshow hypothesis - 0.00000000000001Force multiplier for YHWH hypothesis due to quality of evidence - 100xYHWH fireshow hypothesis (final) - 0.000000000001Maximalist lie hypothesis wins.
>>18089198>Proving he has logically required existence is a separate topicNo it's not, you are just throwing words. I can also say the Aztec pantheon is logically necessary without justifying anything>So there are things other beings have the power to do that this one does not.You mean like your God as he is described in the bible? You are not solving anything with your metal gymnastics. Can the Father walk, breathe, etc? No so that means the Father is not omnipotent.>"The law of non-contradiction has been written about in books" is a non-necessary fact about the logically necessary law of non-contradiction, for instance.No it's not. Those books just describe a fact of reality and are not themselves the fact in question. For something to be logically necessary it needs to be the same in every possible world. Your triune being can be by your own admission composed of 2 or 2 million persons and is therefore not necessary. You can claim that a God is necessary but you cannot claim YOUR God is necessary.>Can you provide an argument for independence being a binary rather than a gradient?Yes. The word "independent" is defined in dictionaries as "not depending on another" If you even depend on another only 0.00001% then you are still depending on another and thus not independent.>Quasi is a modifierThat's not what I asked. Try again.>And what will I findLiterally what you were asking me but none of this is relevant you're just running.>Can you highlight that in the picture?Yes I can highlight the words you are lying about.>It means he isn't an example.Wait a minute so you don't care that he is a witness to Christians doing the very thing I said they were doing? Was he lying? Why isn't his testimony good enough? Not enough fireballs? >This has never been a prevalent and certainly not a mainstream notion.Straw man... Even if it was only one person his belief still satisfies the problem you have and thus your God is contingent
>>18089323*supposed events
>>18089323Show your work anon. Please, give me the math you used to get these numbers. Surely your calculations carefully factored in all the relevant facts and aren't just you saying "it's eleventy billion times more likely that you're wrong bro no way".
>>18089388I don't need to, all I needed was to demonstrate the principle that if you have a sufficiently low prior probability for something, testimonial evidence will never be enough to prove it to you.I.e. no matter how much testimonial evidence you find, you'll never convince me that the twin towers were destroyed by teenage mutant ninja turtles.
>>18089329>I can also say the Aztec pantheon is logically necessary without justifying anythingWell yes, if I ask you to define what you mean by "Aztec pantheon" you can include whatever you want since the question is "When you use this phrase, what do you mean?".>Can the Father walk, breathe, etc? No so that means the Father is not omnipotent.Correct, the Father isn't omnipotent on his own. That's why God is trinitarian, it enables God to be omnipotent.>No it's not. It is. You are making a true statement about the law of non-contradiction - that it has been written about in books - and your statement is not a logically necessary truth. Literally any logically necessary truth you can think of has non-necessary facts about it, because "anon can think about this logically necessary truth" is a non-necessary fact about that truth!> For something to be logically necessary it needs to be the same in every possible worldTrinitarianism is true in every possible world.>Your triune being can be by your own admission composed of 2 or 2 million persons and is therefore not necessary.What's necessary is "God has hypostases". If God is omnipotent then this is necessarily true. And when I say "Trinitarianism", I mean the fact of God having hypostases. Hence Trinitarianism is true in any possible world where God exists, which I posit to be all of them.>If you even depend on another only 0.00001% then you are still depending on another and thus not independent.Say your boss gives you orders during work hours but not outside of them. By this definition, are you independent of your boss?>That's not what I asked.Can you clarify your question, then? You can replace the word "quasi" with "somewhat" or "semi-" if it helps you understand what's being said.>Literally what you were asking meCan you quote it?
>>18089329>Wait a minute so you don't care that he is a witness to Christians doing the very thing I said they were doing? You can always find someone who has had basically any weird theological position you can think of at some point. I can find you someone who thinks Jesus is Elvis. I asked if you could bring forward the actual writings of someone who held this position. You're unable because they are a strange and fringe minority who leave barely the scarcest trace in history or on theology.>his belief still satisfies the problem you have and thus your God is contingentI don't really understand what you're trying to say here to be completely honest. Can you rephrase?
>>18088662It has been a well known fact. Some zionists try to say they're le ancient Hebrews but all the evidence points to the contrary
>>18089404>I don't need toBecause there is none. You're making up completely meaningless numbers. It's exactly as substantial as just saying "the odds of me being wrong are eleventy zillion to one". >if you have a sufficiently low prior probability for somethingBy this you just mean "I disagree with this". Show me the math for this "low prior probability". Probabilities are mathematical, anon. You're just talking about your own personal feelings on the matter. Nothing more.>I.e. no matter how much testimonial evidence you find, you'll never convince me that the twin towers were destroyed by teenage mutant ninja turtles.Your reasoning here is completely backwards. We find no testimonial evidence for this because it didn't happen. And you believe plenty of things that would otherwise be unbelievably bizarre based on your normal experience because of testimonial evidence. Do you believe that if you put a house high in the sky, the people inside float?
>>18089432I see you're not familiar with epistemic probabilities. Look then up. Anyway, this whole thing is just you seething at people thinking that the existence of your god is incredibly improbable. That's all there is to it. You can wrap it up in whatever speech you want, but it will always be just this.>Your reasoning here is completely backwards. We find no testimonial evidence for this because it didn't happen.Right, but I'm saying that even IF we did find such testimonial evidence, I still would not believe the TMNT blew up the twin towers. On that note, how would you feel had you not eaten breakfast today?>And you believe plenty of things that would otherwise be unbelievably bizarre based on your normal experience because of testimonial evidence. Do you believe that if you put a house high in the sky, the people inside float?You can try to argue that my priors for deities shouldn't be so low, but it won't change the fact that IF my priors for deities are indeed so low, your argument is a complete nonstarter for me. And that's all I'm arguing here. People who are not convinced by your argument often find your YHWH as plausible as the TMNT. Not joking, it's the truth.
>>18089415>if I ask you to define what you mean by "Aztec pantheon" you can include whatever you wantAnd if I start listing Roman gods and goddesses as an example then it would still be as equally meaningless gibberish and you would think I have no idea what I am talking about.>the Father isn't omnipotent on his ownThen the Father doesn't have essential divine making properties and is thus not God. The trinity is the only true God in your model>facts about itThat's not the same as the truth in question. Can you seriously not distinguish between a subject's attributes and them being written somewhere? >Trinitarianism is true in every possible worldOkay then justify that statement, prove to me that the Father cannot create another hypostasis right now.>when I say "Trinitarianism", I mean the fact of God having hypostases.You don't even know what trinitarianism means. Is the existence of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit true in all possible worlds? No therefore you have a contingent God>By this definition, are you independent of your boss?No because you're dependent on him on some hours and really during your off hours because employment doesn't just terminate every time you go home.>if it helps you understand what's being saidSwapping out the word doesn't help. Show me an example outside of the trinity for both of those quasis>Can you quote it?You want me to quote you?>You can always find someone who has had basically any weird theological position you can think of at some point.Okay and? I never said it's common even though it was common enough within the church for it to be recorded. As you have seen there even those that don't think of the Holy Spirit as a person in the godhead are respectful enough to it not to say things that may count as blasphemy. You know because they don't want to go to hell. My point is that position, no matter how fringe can easily replace your trinitarianism and solve every problem you have.
>>18087501>underground gas pocket or sewer fire.nigger just say he was making it up at this point no need to delve into something far more schizo.
>>18089455>I see you're not familiar with epistemic probabilitiesI'm very familiar with this silly line of argument. Usually there's a bit more effort put into masking that it amounts to "I don't agree with your idea so I think it's probably not true". You at least wasted slightly less time and just went ahead and made it clear you were making up numbers.>the existence of your god is incredibly improbableIt isn't, the odds are 100%. Check out >>18088577>Right, but I'm saying that even IF we did find such testimonial evidence, I still would not believeYour line of reasoning is like someone saying "the moon is more important than the sun since we need the light more at night". It's upside-down, inside-out, and backwards. There's virtually no testimonial evidence for this sort of thing precisely because it doesn't exist. We're in a world absent bipedial turtles and so we're also in a world absent serious testimony for them.>On that note, how would you feel had you not eaten breakfast today?The way I do right now - I never eat breakfast. #OMAD for me!>IF my priors for deities are indeed so low, your argument is a complete nonstarter for me. And that's all I'm arguing here. Well again then you're just talking about psychology (to put it very generously) instead of making any sort of actual counter-argument. You're saying "I don't like this", not "this is in error".
>>18089477>you would think I have no idea what I am talking about.I would think you're using a strange definition, but there's nothing wrong with that if you clearly define it and aren't trying to obfuscate. >Then the Father doesn't have essential divine making propertiesThis is an empty semantic argument. The Father is the core part of God and so is very much God.>The trinity is the only true God in your modelThe Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are the Trinity. They're parts of it. If you're part of God, you are God.>That's not the same as the truth in question.Similarly, "God has hypostasis" is the necessary truth in question if you're talking about the necessary truth of Trinitarianism. The question of how that works out in the contingent world is something else.>prove to me that the Father cannot create another hypostasis right now.I think he can and you'd have a Quadrinity. By "Trinitarianism" I simply mean the fact that God has hypostases.>No therefore you have a contingent GodYou're confusing God being contingent with a certain *description of facts about God* being contingent. You might as well say that because God not smiting Egypt with the Ten Plagues is not true in all possible worlds, and I believe God smited Egypt with the Ten Plagues, then I believe in a contingent God.>No because you're dependent on him on some hoursRight, the term "some" can apply to dependency. It's a gradient, not a binary.>You want me to quote you?I want you to quote the earliest Christian you can who said they "didn't even know if the Holy Spirit was a person". Unless you just meant "some fringe people disagreed on this", in which case we might as well say "Muslims don't even know if Allah is Wallace Fard Muhammad or not".>My point is that position, no matter how fringe can easily replace your trinitarianism and solve every problem you have.Can you elaborate on how you see this being the case?
