An argument for God

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Theology in many ways is the study of cult fantasy which people believe is real, which is why it is called Theology and not Philosophy.

Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it.

As for your proposal, I counter with this "Jesus cannot bend/break the natural order to walk on water" with the argument that any actions influenced on the world have an explanation to why they occur, even if you do not understand it at the time (thus appearance of it occurring). I also don't deny the possibility of the feat as there have been enough magicians able to perform it on the river thames.


Such feats do not require supernatural intervention which you are proposing. So especially when you apply the KISS principle, it is something far simpler than external disruption of time and space. So it is something natural which is observable and can be explained which doesn't require things to be imagined which have zero evidence of existence.

I think that is a pretty solid logical argument against your proposal and a dismissal of your dismissal.

From your reply, it isn't a matter of me not having understood the OP, your objection more jerk-knee response as you dislike the notion of being incorrect in your beliefs.

Dynamo didn't walk on water - he just made it look like he did.

Congratulations on really failing to read my posts - you did EXACTLY what I predicted. In fact, you used exactly the example I expected. Your response was so predictable I already wrote the counter in my last post. If this was fencing then you just missed the parry and I landed a square hit.

[Beskar]

Congratulations on really failing to read my posts - you did EXACTLY what I predicted. In fact, you used exactly the example I expected. Your response was so predictable I already wrote the counter in my last post. If this was fencing then you just missed the parry and I landed a square hit.

Not really, you did a feint and I called your bluff, and it went through. However, I think we can both possibly agree that going further won't make any practical sense for either of us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really, you did a feint and I called your bluff, and it went through. However, I think we can both possibly agree that going further won't make any practical sense for either of us.

I was very explicit in my point, you showed yourself either unwilling or unable to understand it.

I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God.

You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it.

So you're basically pretending to engage with Rhy's point or you have a huge intellectual blind spot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument. If you were looking for a specific conversation about a certain premise, I did not catch that.

[Husar]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

Questioning yourself is not a bad start.

[rickinator9]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?

[Brenus]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?
"I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.
Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?

Philosophy is the "Love of Wisdom" or "truth" depending on how you render it.

Physics mercilessly searches for the truth of the structure of the universe through mathematics.

That's why Aristotle and Newton studied it.

"I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.

Excellent counter argument - although I would point out that it Jesus was not the Ultimate and the Ultimate didn't want him to walk on water then he would have got wet.

Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.

It's a solution, but it's not one we can discuss. We either have to agree to disagree and drink more wine, or we have to tear our shirts off and wrestle for it with out nipples touching.

More wine?

[a completely inoffensive name]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?

Physics depends on philosophical underpinnings in order to even begin the scientific method. When applying the scientific method, think about whether:

A. This information will manifest itself through experiments, in other words, that the information we seek is indeed observable.
B. This information is in fact universal and applies everywhere.
C. That repeated observation alone is justifiable in asserting scientific truth.
D. That the model you obtain is indeed the truth of the matter or simply a model that describes the situation (an important distinction).

There are many other questions related to science that are philosophical in nature. But all the above statements are still in flux and while the day to day physicists do their work and publish their findings and build upon their knowledge, the foundation of what they do is based on philosophical positions that they accept without question, whether they realize it or not.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument.

That is indeed what this thread is for but some people seem to think it is about something else entirely. I was not thinking of you when I said that, btw.

You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?

Some people (not everyone) gave thoughts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Jesus' miracles, the God of the Bible, Christian theology, spaghetti planets, Cthulhu etc are all totally irrelevant to the argument I gave in the OP, and anyone bringing them up doesn't understand the argument.

I'm sorry for throwing all the toys out the pram, but the attitudes of some posters in this thread have been completely disrespectful.