Vote
95 Total Votes
1

Yes

73 votes
26 comments
2

No

22 votes
6 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2014-08-23T21:32:47.1952129-05:00
Black holes allow you to go forward in time, going back in time will cause a paradox and is thus impossible.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T22:16:04.0974512-05:00
@PeterSmith That makes perfect sense. IF we could go in the past, then we couldn't go back into the future because we affected our existence in the past by going from the present backwards, thus resolving in a negative and contradictory effect.
reece says2014-08-23T22:32:19.1782166-05:00
@TheMatt Unless you temporarily replicate time.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T22:33:51.9223859-05:00
@reece Hmmm.... You've made a good point. The only question that remains is how do we replicate time? That seems like a very hard complex process but it may be possible
reece says2014-08-23T22:40:03.0847235-05:00
@TheMatt You could make a time bible...
reece says2014-08-23T22:40:22.7099009-05:00
Bubble i mean LOL
TheMatt says2014-08-23T22:42:23.4094220-05:00
@reece yes, lol
reece says2014-08-23T22:45:49.4191451-05:00
You wouldn't have to exit the current stream of time.It would be like a bubble in and tube full of water.
reece says2014-08-23T22:46:28.3447091-05:00
A* sorry for the mistakes.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T23:02:12.5971094-05:00
@reece No problem. That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. Just make sure to watch out for those pesky black holes; those suckers will tear you to shreds:)
PinValentine says2014-08-23T23:04:38.9025974-05:00
I answered yes However I do not know if time travel is possible. I believe that if it is possible it would be through the unconventional sense. Through scientific theories that may or may not be true, theories that I am not sure are true, time travel would be possible to both the past and the future with out any paradox being created from visiting either destination. Through these theories time would automatically replicate with out human intervention and it would automatically replicate by simply visiting the past or future. This would make time travel very possible, and perhaps a little less complicated.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T23:26:13.9960540-05:00
@PinValentine Good point. I think if Science advances in the understanding of dimensions and the relationship between time and causality, then maybe it may be possible, but I think it would be a very bad idea in the long run
PinValentine says2014-08-23T23:35:54.7749806-05:00
I don't think it would be a bad idea. If it is, it might only be for the individual. If these theories I speak of are correct, then the current universe would be unaffected and unaware of any change made in the past or future. The only knowledge of change would be from those who do travel in time. Might I clarify that there would be no change in any universe made by time travel which were either intentional or accidental. No changes what so ever. Paradoxes would automatically repair themselves, they might not even be created in the first place.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T23:39:34.3366001-05:00
@PinValentine I'm sorry. I met to say that the idea itself isn't bad(the Idea is Good) but the implications for the individual, per say. I think it's possible to alter time in a way that we could travel in it. There would have to be some time travel device, like Reece said, that would allow us to travel like water through a tube without affecting our cognitive and physical bodies, while at the same time, not allowing time itself to alter history in a certain way.
PinValentine says2014-08-23T23:46:04.9837124-05:00
I understand your stance. Through certain scientific theories regarding physics I believe that any time travel may not change history at all. It would not have any affect on the time line we currently live, save for the individual who travels. For that individual, and that individual alone, the time line would change, those who do not travel, time would not change at all. This includes the idea of weather or not we are aware of any change.
TheMatt says2014-08-23T23:52:16.3176533-05:00
@PinValentine Brainstorm! You, me and Reece, should come up with a time travel device that actually works:)
PinValentine says2014-08-23T23:55:06.9693350-05:00
I don't know about a device, I am not a theoretical, or experimental physicist. Nor am I an engineer. We may brainstorm about how the idea of time travel is possible with out any change to our time line, but a device is beyond my capabilities.
Formerland1 says2014-08-24T12:08:54.8551253-05:00
If you perceive time as one dimensional it's not possible . However time does not only go forward it can be perceived as a river . It's hard to explain with words if I had a chart if show you but u don't think I can paste pictures .
Formerland1 says2014-08-24T12:09:33.3252185-05:00
I already have a time travel device that should work if I ever had the materials to build it .
TheMatt says2014-08-24T13:29:26.3059740-05:00
@Formerland sounds good. If we could go back in time, I would go back during the time of Jesus of Nazareth. I would also go 2000 years into the future
Epicknightmc says2014-08-24T20:44:17.3885398-05:00
Nice pictures!
TheMatt says2014-08-24T20:50:13.0071438-05:00
@EpicKnightMc Thanks dawg:)
PinValentine says2014-08-24T23:19:51.4713413-05:00
I would go to the time of Jesus just to find physical proof of his nonexistence.
TheMatt says2014-08-25T00:16:35.2307535-05:00
@PinValentine But there is no evidence that Jesus never existed; just like there is no evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. We have just as much, if not more documentary evidence for Jesus than any other figure in ancient history.
PinValentine says2014-08-25T01:21:23.0091712-05:00
We have no documentation evidence for Jesus's existence. The bible is not documentation evidence. No one in history at the time mentions him at all. Only the bible does.
TheMatt says2014-08-25T12:49:46.8799007-05:00
@PinValentine That's true of almost anyone from ancient history. We don't have any contemporary records of Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, Roman prefects and Governors before Pilate and all throughout the first century. The NT are historical documents that are of the genre of history and not myth and fantasy
PinValentine says2014-08-25T22:51:09.2120328-05:00
We are pretty sure the people you mentioned existed. We have writings by them, cities named after them, even historical records that mention them. Statues, paintings, mosaics, etc... We don't have a single shred of Jesus as being real and historical. Not one. Only a book that was written decades and centuries later.
TheQuestion says2014-08-25T23:36:51.0427593-05:00
@PinValentine You have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus had a much bigger, global impact than any little statues and paintings. Also, we do have historical records of Him. You'll be hard pressed to find four, reliable, independently attested accounts of many other historical figures we accept without questioning. I get the impression by the way you talk about it that you're only parroting what you've heard on the popular atheist grape-vine and that you haven't actually done any real research into it.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T00:34:21.0524047-05:00
Do you hear yourself? Provide for me proof of Jesus' existence out side of the bible. Show me any proof from the time of his life, not after. All the people you mentioned we have over whelming evidence to show that they existed. Are you so naive to ignore historical evidence?
TheQuestion says2014-08-26T01:33:19.9233020-05:00
@PinValentine You have no warrant to require historical evidence from a place other than the primary documents and sources.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T01:42:35.1762360-05:00
Show me your sources.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T10:43:18.0790532-05:00
@PinValentine Nope. We don't have any records of Marcellus, the Roman prefect before Pilate(Who crucified Jesus). All we have is one or two documents from Josephus that were written 60 years later. Therefore, according to your logic, Marcellus couldn't have existed because nothing from his day exists that is written about him. Pilate has only one inscription of his name and a few coins. We don't have any court affidavits, trials records, letters or writings from him to emperors and yet Pilate is a Roman Governor. King Herod the Great's daughter "Salome", whom the bible mentions, doesn't have any records of her existence from her day, and yet she's one of the King's Daughters! All we have are sources about her after she existed by the NT documents, Josephus, and the apocrphyl texts. It seems you have a bad prejudice about the NT. You seem to think that the NT has to have outside sources to confirm them and that isn't how history works. The NT, including the 4 gospels, was not the "NT" until 300 years after the time of Jesus. The NT was instead a composite of ancient greco-roman writings about Jesus that are verifiable by historical methods and evidence.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T19:58:16.0362809-05:00
You are making the outrageous claim, so burden of proof is on you. Either you must prove yourself, or shut up.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T20:24:14.8968622-05:00
@PinValentine We are both making knowledge claims, the only difference is that I'm providing evidence and a consensus of historians on the evidence, while you're arguing for conspiracy that atheists on the internet toute. But since you ask, I will cite you my sources http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Judea
PinValentine says2014-08-26T20:45:46.2578474-05:00
Wikipidia is not a reliable source. I acknowledge it, but if you choose to use it you must accompany it with a reliable source as well. Don't waist my time.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T20:48:20.3002639-05:00
@PinValentine Why must I do your research for you? You have fingers, hands and a keyboard don't you?
PinValentine says2014-08-26T20:52:50.0742419-05:00
The proof of burden is on you. I've done my research, it is your turn.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T20:54:26.6682551-05:00
@PinValentine Well, if you've really done your research, then you should know the consensus and kind of evidence for Jesus. The fact that your asking me shows your either lying or trolling
PinValentine says2014-08-26T20:57:36.5083058-05:00
There is no evidence for Jesus. Quit wasting my time.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:02:07.4855168-05:00
@PinValentine According to who?
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:05:12.5206751-05:00
You don't have to place "@PinValentine" at the beginning of each comment; I am able to see your wasted finger movement with out it. It is according to objective thinking researchers who have be unable to find any such proof. Find me one shred of evidence and I will consider your claim. Until you do, I will not entertain your ideas.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:11:28.3631027-05:00
There is virtually no historian or scholar today who says this. I've already mentioned the NT documents, but also Tacitus, Josephus. The apocrophyl gospels. Mara Bar Serapion, Lucius, Pliny the Younger and Suetonious
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:16:02.7497702-05:00
You are going far against common knowledge. If you're next comment does not have any shed of proof, I shall not respond. I will not have my time wasted. I have more important matters to attend to.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:17:34.9077515-05:00
What proof are you looking for? I've given you the names of sources for studying Jesus.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:20:06.8895478-05:00
I've done all this research. I am done with your stupid claim.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:22:19.0371248-05:00
Feel free to call my claims stupid, but until you've done actually research from historians and scholars instead of conspiracy theorists, then I think you know that what you're proposing is non-sensehttp://www.Is-there-a-god.Info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:29:22.3308216-05:00
Is that your evidence? This is a man who wrote an article because of someone who was, and likely still is, poking holes in his information. He does so quite accurately. The author of the article chose names and references that helped his claim with out giving both sides of the story. He chose scholars that studied what he agrees with and completely ignored those who disagree with him. The article is nothing other than a desperate attempt to quite a commented who is showing him where and why he is wrong. I suggest that you look into both the comments, and the person writing the article next time. I would also like to add that an article written by an armature is not proof. I require professional articles written by professional scholars. Show me that.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:32:40.8483731-05:00
The article I cited you was listing professional historians and scholars, who all affirm that their colleagues agree that Jesus existed.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:34:16.5718139-05:00
There are professional scholars who disagree with them. Show me what these scholars have that can be submitted as viable evidence. There is none.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:35:33.6528962-05:00
I already have showed you the evidence that historians agree on but you're not willing to look at it. Show me the historians and scholars who think Jesus never existed
PinValentine says2014-08-26T21:40:31.1194166-05:00
You have shown me nothing.
TheMatt says2014-08-26T21:44:56.1947499-05:00
If what I haven't shown is evidence then I don't know what is.
TheQuestion says2014-08-26T23:13:27.1658462-05:00
@PinValentine, if you're SO confident that there is nothing we could possibly give you to show the reliable historicity of the person of Jesus of Nazareth then stop asking for it. TheMatt has made things easy for you by providing two links with the obvious intention of giving you a stepping stone to conducting an in-depth study of modern historical scholarship yourself but all you do is sit on your hands and repeatedly read your go to conspiracy card. Stop wasting TheMatt's time if you're willing to jump on your head just to avoid seriously thinking about things so you can sit comfortably in your chair of blissful ignorance. It's not worth anyone's effort to try and show you anything if you're going to either just play your cheap conspiracy cards or close your eyes and repeatedly chant "You have shown me nothing". It is thoroughly disengaging.
PinValentine says2014-08-26T23:34:45.0644207-05:00
Interesting word; "conspiracy". It is a word which has little meaning here. As I have said, I have done my research. I have seen, heard and read what these scholars consider to be evidence. It is not evidence. It is nothing but their speculations. The links he gave me were also unreliable, and one of them were biased. If I am shown one piece of viable evidence, one that can be counted on, then my mind would be easily changed. Show me something I have not seen.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T01:04:13.7367262-05:00
See, that is exactly what you say, "It's nothing but speculation". When as a matter of fact, you're the one here who is making the bold speculation. If I recall correctly, you're the one claiming that Jesus never existed. Well, I'm sorry but in consideration of modern scholarship, it is far more bold to claim Jesus never existed than to accept that he did exist. - "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God. Page 285 Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 page 200 Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) page 34 Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. Page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted" James D. G. Dunn: "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis" - So really PinValentine, it is TheMatt and I who rightfully so should be sitting on our hands here and saying that you are doing nothing but speculating and that you have no evidence to the contrary of Jesus' existence. If you claim to have already done your research, stop asking us to show you what you have apparently already "seen, heard and read what these scholars consider to be evidence". If you don't find the historical evidence for Jesus the Nazarene convincing, that's your affair, not ours. So unless you actually have reason or evidence to the contrary of his existence, stop dancing around because we are not entertained.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T09:51:45.1596794-05:00
@TheQuestion Thanks! It seems that PinValentine is acting like a troll. He/She keeps using tactics that aren't historical. If the same tactics can be used for Jesus, then they can be used on anybody in history. I wonder why she doesn't deny anybody else in history.
reece says2014-08-27T09:57:48.4262449-05:00
@TheMatt I believe Jesus existed too but not as the son of a god, more like a cult leader. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:00:09.8741650-05:00
Just as well then that the historical evidence for Jesus is quite extraordinary.
reece says2014-08-27T10:01:05.8168408-05:00
@TheQuestion As being the son of a god, no.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:01:33.6105850-05:00
@reece extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. All a claim needs is evidence to support it.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:01:57.2601850-05:00
@reece, as being the son of God, yes.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:02:38.7249850-05:00
You still haven't provided any evidence. The quotes you gave all said the same thing. They believe Jesus existed and that there are other scholars agree with them. You didn't mention any of their evidence. At all. I have done all my research, I agree with those scholars who believe Jesus did not exist. Show me something I haven't seen.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:03:55.3206913-05:00
You obviously didn't understand the purpose of my comment PinValentine.
reece says2014-08-27T10:04:37.4248214-05:00
@TheMatt so you guys just relying on primitive man for witness testimony. We may as well take all the millions of alien abductions as truth too.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:04:42.8847864-05:00
I understand it perfectly. Where is their evidence?
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:05:37.4688365-05:00
On account of what you're saying, I don't think you do.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:06:47.8555853-05:00
Regarding your comment as to why you voted "no"; we have literal evidence of people who have time traveled milliseconds into the future. It is possible through extraordinary means.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:06:48.0895838-05:00
Valentine, you keep claiming that scholars disagree with them. There is only 2 or 3 scholars in the entire world who think Jesus was a myth. No University Professor teaches the Christ Myth Theory as history. The consensus is that Jesus existed
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:08:04.2794954-05:00
This is based on what evidence? Is it the shroud of Turin?
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:09:05.0567058-05:00
Lol? Seriously? You're talking about the shroud now? Where on earth are you coming from?
reece says2014-08-27T10:11:16.5966806-05:00
@TheQuestion you guys can only rely on primitive man for evidence and your subjectivity.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:11:35.5354448-05:00
There is a lovely little word which is called sarcasm. It is a useful tool in some situations. That comment of mine might have been sarcasm. It might have also been cynicism. It really depends on how you look at it.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:12:26.5047307-05:00
Uhuh, ok then.
reece says2014-08-27T10:13:24.6626491-05:00
Why don't you guys believe in other mythology?
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:14:14.3776994-05:00
Other mythologies all have the same elements as Christianity.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:14:33.7688723-05:00
That question is so general it's unanswerable in any short and meaningful way.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:15:41.1652741-05:00
@reece because christianity isn't founded on myth but factual history
reece says2014-08-27T10:16:01.6640683-05:00
Is it because you want to believe it?
reece says2014-08-27T10:16:41.8348408-05:00
@TheMatt Yeah talking snakes...
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:16:52.2870418-05:00
What?
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:17:37.0228364-05:00
@reece no, the resurrection of Jesus
reece says2014-08-27T10:18:32.8309753-05:00
@TheMatt You know that as a fact, not a claim?
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:18:50.3189116-05:00
It is interesting, isn't it? I am looking at all kinds of evidence of Jesus's existence, and I am only finding documents, papers, memoirs, and other evidence that was made decades after he is said to have existed. I wonder what might have inspired those papers. You know; I bet it was the Gospels that inspired those. They were written around the same time. The scholars who agree Jesus existed site those examples, but have nothing from the time of his life. Isn't that interesting?
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:21:51.6304364-05:00
Even if he had existed, I am pretty sure he was not near divine. I think he likely was a victim of that thing where people make him out to be more than he actually was which made him a legend. I can't think of the name. The same thing happened to Buffalo Bill. Perhaps we aught to start religion around Buffalo Bill.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:26:25.4879750-05:00
You keep using the fact that we don't have contemporary records from Jesus' day, as though that were a trump card against historians, when in fact, that is true of many ancient figures in the Roman world. Why not use the same tactics you use for Jesus on anyone else in ancient history?
reece says2014-08-27T10:28:14.4228065-05:00
@TheMatt because their not claiming to be a son of a god! And if they do, we base them under mythology.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:31:50.0161885-05:00
Most historical figures have proof of their existence from their time. Jesus does not. Once the gospels were made up, any one could write up memoirs and papers about him. 90 years later is not historical fact.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:34:00.9229332-05:00
@reece The question of who was Jesus is different than Was there a Jesus? It's a historical fact that Jesus existed, whether or not he was God
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:35:02.4385017-05:00
@PinValentine What proof do you have for Alexander the Great or Philip the Tetrach?
reece says2014-08-27T10:35:59.7567647-05:00
@TheMatt I know, we're just talking about a cult leader, etc
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:38:23.8731913-05:00
@Reece I'm simply saying whether or not Jesus claimed to be God, doesn't have any bearing on the question of did he actually exist as a historical figure. Obviously, in order for him to make a claim, he would have to exist
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:39:54.8477561-05:00
With Alexander the great, we have things written in his own hand. For both of them we have records of them during the time of their lives, and on some occasions, we have records written on the very day they did something. For Alexander, one would be the day he invaded some of the countries he took over.
reece says2014-08-27T10:40:51.1789950-05:00
@TheMatt But how we view Jesus does change thus how did he exist?
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:42:33.0463420-05:00
@reece the question of who was Jesus is different from whether he existed historically or not. That's all I'm saying. Neither one depends on each other, they are both independent questions.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:44:03.7909603-05:00
@PinValentine We don't have any writings from Alexander the Great. All we have are records written 300 years later by two sources.
reece says2014-08-27T10:44:04.4773559-05:00
@TheMatt Historically he can exist in fiction.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:47:11.2114223-05:00
@reece so you do agree that he existed?
reece says2014-08-27T10:47:11.7886297-05:00
@TheMatt the questions are one in the same.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:48:20.9035062-05:00
@Reece No they're not. Your existence doesn't depend on who you were. Who you were doesn't depend on your existence
reece says2014-08-27T10:48:59.7631062-05:00
@TheMatt Yes, i have said so but not as most Christians would like to think of him
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T10:49:41.4619062-05:00
I don't know how you figure that reece. It doesn't follow from legendary embellishment that the historical figure themselves didn't exist.
PinValentine says2014-08-27T10:50:17.2951062-05:00
Funny. From basic high school knowledge we know that there are record about Alexander the Great from the time of his life.
reece says2014-08-27T10:51:01.0843062-05:00
@TheMatt, His existence is only shown in paper and how we perceive the paper is how we view him.
TheMatt says2014-08-27T10:53:23.0858929-05:00
@Pin Contemporary records for alexander the Great are all lost or exist in fragments. We instead have historians and other figures write about him way after he existed. According to your logic, we must deny he existed because no records from his day survive.
reece says2014-08-27T11:08:05.7057443-05:00
So You guys agree with my comment that we only know who/what he is from scripture which would effect how we understand his existence and that's including if he even existed at all.
reece says2014-08-27T11:09:23.1909443-05:00
This is why the questions are one in the same.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:11:58.2705443-05:00
Obviously, if we didn't have any records of Jesus at all we wouldn't be capable of inferring his existence at all much less than inferring who he was.
reece says2014-08-27T11:14:03.2889443-05:00
OK so TheQuestion got my point, what you, TheMatt.
reece says2014-08-27T11:14:20.5368188-05:00
About*
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:15:38.9637443-05:00
I got your point but I don't extrapolate the implications unnecessarily like you do.
reece says2014-08-27T11:18:25.5709748-05:00
@TheQuestion each detail in the scriptures backs up or contradicts each other...
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:19:59.6083270-05:00
Uhuh
reece says2014-08-27T11:21:49.5290531-05:00
You just need to do the math to answer both questions but most Christians would rather cherry pick.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:24:31.8189740-05:00
Like I said, even if a historical figure is surrounded by legendary embellishment that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion the historical figure themselves did not exist,
TheMatt says2014-08-27T11:30:15.4155815-05:00
I agree with theQ on this. I don't understand the implications you pose here reece. The fact that there are contradictions in the text, is irrelevant to the existence of Jesus. In fact, contradictions are what make Jesus more historical than not. If Jesus were a myth, we should expect harmonization of the text because someone writing a legendary account will say the same thing as the other perosn
reece says2014-08-27T11:30:42.8565092-05:00
@TheQuestion No, but wouldn't different Religious doctrines tell you something?
reece says2014-08-27T11:35:30.5525737-05:00
Different Christian doctrines i mean.
reece says2014-08-27T11:36:01.2705548-05:00
Or both.
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:39:15.8723747-05:00
Are you asking if Christian doctrines say things about the person of Jesus reece?
reece says2014-08-27T11:43:29.0496434-05:00
@TheQuestion We have already established that Jesus might of existed, right?
TheMatt says2014-08-27T11:44:38.4085772-05:00
@reece more like extremely certain that he did than didn't
reece says2014-08-27T11:48:39.1836074-05:00
@TheMatt @TheQuestion would you guys wanna get into more detail?
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:51:46.2133087-05:00
I'm not even entirely sure what we're talking about anymore... More details about what?
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T11:52:42.6541743-05:00
Oh wait, you asked if we wanted to elaborate into more detail (sorry my attention is split while multi-tasking). Umm, sure if you like.
reece says2014-08-27T11:53:12.5476643-05:00
Do you know god? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A_iF1B3k0
reece says2014-08-27T12:00:01.1271549-05:00
How God Favors Evil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234
TheQuestion says2014-08-27T12:08:17.4430658-05:00
Haha, hilarious video XD Certainly, one of the far better ones on DarkMatter's part (not to mention that I left atheist popularisers behind when my forehead started to get red from face palming so much). But I'm sorry, whilst funny, this was just flat out genetic fallacy, 'nuf said (actually, this is a great demonstration of the genetic fallacy so thanks for the resource ;) Now it's 3:10am so I will return here another time (and will watch the other video you just posted when I do).
TheMatt says2014-08-27T12:20:35.7896645-05:00
I like InspiringPhilosophy's channel the best.
reece says2014-08-27T12:32:44.2144724-05:00
@TheQuestion how are they irrelevant to their "true meaning" going by genetic fallacy.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:01:29.7857838-05:00
You're asking the wrong question reece.
reece says2014-08-28T00:02:59.1267412-05:00
@TheQuestion Please try to enlighten me?
TheMatt says2014-08-28T00:15:11.6890643-05:00
@reece Genetic Fallacy. Dark tries to show a belief to be false based upon how it originated. It may be true that being born in a country would cause you to have a different belief system. However, it doesn't follow that the belief system you hold is false simply because you were brought up to believe it.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:15:55.0882643-05:00
It is a question of merit.
reece says2014-08-28T00:18:32.4038000-05:00
@TheQuestion so you're using general subjectivity in the case?
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:20:12.7742000-05:00
What now?
reece says2014-08-28T00:21:38.6834000-05:00
The question of merit is subjective, right?
reece says2014-08-28T00:22:33.9074000-05:00
Well, what you've presented.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:23:13.6094000-05:00
I meant "merit" in terms of the "truth value" of a belief.
reece says2014-08-28T00:25:32.8394000-05:00
@TheQuestion and how would we find out the truth value.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:26:26.1290000-05:00
That depends on the belief.
reece says2014-08-28T00:27:24.4418000-05:00
@TheQuestion or should we say, faith.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:28:40.1330000-05:00
That is a superfluous question... Try not to allow yourself to be unnecessarily distracted in the pursuit for truth.
reece says2014-08-28T00:34:29.4794541-05:00
@TheQuestion truth doesn't need to require faith. Faith is subjective, truth is objective. http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2014/03/ASuToiS.jpg unlike religion.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:42:20.0015244-05:00
That quote is a little twisted, I would replace the word "science" with "truth". The good thing about "truth" is that it is true whether or not you believe it. Hence, asking questions of faith (which is trust in a belief) is a superfluous question.
reece says2014-08-28T00:46:25.6736268-05:00
The word "science" in that quote represents the scientific principles. A trust in a belief is still could faith.
reece says2014-08-28T00:47:32.8652171-05:00
Called* not could.
TheMatt says2014-08-28T00:49:59.4719046-05:00
@reece Faith is a conclusion of trusting in a belief that you have good reasons or evidence for.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T00:52:39.4100139-05:00
I would simple put it as "trust in a belief". Whether or not the belief and the faith are reasonable is a secondary question. And reece, I do you one better by using the word "truth" instead of "science". Because if a scientific principle is true, then it is a part of "truth". Also, I'm not sure you realise we're on the same page here.
reece says2014-08-28T01:06:34.2444681-05:00
@TheMatt faith by definition is the exact opposite. @TheQuestion Let me clarify, A scientific principle is the knowledge of nescience.
reece says2014-08-28T01:14:39.5738957-05:00
The acknowledgment of nescience i should say.
TheMatt says2014-08-28T01:17:08.1002574-05:00
@reece is it your assumption that someone who has "faith" in God is taken to mean someone who believes in God subjectively? Or can someone have "faith" in God for objective reasons?
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T01:17:22.8737415-05:00
Faith is only ever defined as the exact opposite by atheist popularisers or the like. Speaking strictly in terms of definition though, faith is simply understood as trust in a belief.
TheMatt says2014-08-28T01:28:18.0239403-05:00
The Question I agree with you completely on that
reece says2014-08-28T01:29:23.6856030-05:00
@TheMatt you can only believe in god subjectively because of how you interpret the bible, etc. @TheQuestion Yes, which doesn't rest on logical proof.
TheMatt says2014-08-28T01:33:05.9586774-05:00
@Reece But my belief in God doesn't hinge on what I think about the Bible. My belief in God hinges on objective historical, philosophical, and theological datum
reece says2014-08-28T01:35:57.5752525-05:00
@TheMatt I said the "bible, etc" i didn't just say the bible. So you know that what you believe is the truth?
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T01:39:59.6318325-05:00
Reece, you do realise that as human beings, we can only ever believe in anything subjectively right?
reece says2014-08-28T01:41:59.7229419-05:00
@TheQuestion yes i do. But religion claims that it knows the truth.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T01:43:47.5680172-05:00
So what?
reece says2014-08-28T01:47:26.2945029-05:00
@TheQuestion In a sense, science=nescience which is objectiveness and religion is subjectiveness.
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T01:49:41.8092689-05:00
More like in no sense.
reece says2014-08-28T01:51:19.0560981-05:00
@TheQuestion explain?
TheQuestion says2014-08-28T01:52:07.7476709-05:00
I don't feel like I really need to, I don't see the point in this conversation.
Student4Life1975 says2014-09-25T18:07:13.8637881-05:00
Anyone who says no is not aware of the Space Shuttle missions where they routinely set the Atomic clocks on the shuttle to match the ones on earth, and by the time they return from the mission its not unusual for the clocks to be a few seconds out. So its not only possible, its been visually verified.
TheQuestion says2014-09-27T04:48:38.1207734-05:00
I still don't see why it follows that a clock going slower than other clocks means that time itself is going slower.
penguin558 says2014-11-22T15:11:29.6222525-06:00
@PetersSmith, That is incorrect, black holes do not allow you to go into the past/ future, they only allow you go into the 4th demension if you were to fly into a certain spot by the BH, anyways it's a theory. Science was my thing as a kid _\\//
Mister_Man says2014-11-22T15:21:09.8724133-06:00
Penguin - absolutely correct. A black hole is not a "worm hole," as a black hole consists of pure gravity and energy, with a singularity at the centre. It's not a rift in space-time at all. Anything that enters the event horizon would be smushed to nothing. This is the only part of the movie Interstellar that I didn't like, lol.
WillDC22 says2014-12-08T22:17:42.5139845-06:00
If you actually looked it up (as I did) you would know the answer is yes
Mister_Man says2014-12-08T23:20:25.6288876-06:00
Will - I hope you're not referring to the idea that we're constantly heading into the future lol
WillDC22 says2014-12-09T14:59:36.9493230-06:00
I'm not
benhos says2015-02-22T15:57:20.6617259-06:00
I wish... But I don't think so.
wheatises2153 says2015-04-01T08:06:35.9884043-05:00
Well if a paradox exists then there for it is possible. Because if a paradox isn't real then we wouldn't be talkin about it
graceafur says2015-04-09T13:38:23.8588128-05:00
Only if you go faster than the speed of light, then time reverses, but that's impossible for humans. Maybe aliens?
ImARedditFreakDontJudgeMe says2015-07-10T21:52:57.1927625-05:00
Technically aren't we traveling through time right now? We live in a 3-dimensional world, that changes over "time". We ARE traveling through time, we're just going with the flow.
rare29931 says2016-01-22T09:33:38.0206636Z
Well, @pinvalentine , better stop talking and believe in something. Stop wasting your life by offending other people. There IS evidence that Jesus exists, you are just too not-informed to know so.
bobbyh9979 says2016-04-28T19:15:11.3697817Z
One theory states that going back in time would create an alternate, identical timeline. This would for non paradoxical situations to take place.
AllLifeIsPrecious says2016-08-29T21:09:37.2177522Z
Nothing is impossible
Strongnite says2017-03-16T12:03:44.2142066Z
Black holes actually freeze time in the very center... Time travel from them is science fiction.
NDECD1441 says2017-07-31T01:32:15.4005115Z
Possible basically means "can be done". Eventually, I imagine that technology will be advanced enough for time travel though there is a chance for a paradox to happen.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.