This forum makes my eyes bleed.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who created the creator?

We can address that, but for now it's a diversion. We are talking about this universe, how it came about, using Occam's Razor as our guide--the alternatives being (a) it was created, or (b) it was not created. If it was created, there is a Creator. If it was not created, then it came about without an antecedent cause, and any explanation for that violates basic logic, basic science, and involves explanations infinitely more complex than the alternative.

Occam's Razor demands the simplest answer. And that answer is quite obvious, to most of us. Does that mean Occam's Razor is always correct? No. It just means using Occam's Razor to defend the argument that all this came about out of nothing without a cause is humorously ironic. And wrong.

Originally posted by sumydid
We can address that, but for now it's a diversion. We are talking about this universe, how it came about, using Occam's Razor as our guide--the alternatives being (a) it was created, or (b) it was not created. If it was created, there is a Creator. If it was not created, then it came about without an antecedent cause, and any explanation for that violates ...[text shortened]... t that all this came about out of nothing without a cause is humorously ironic. And wrong.

The simple answer is this, we don't know how/why the universe came into being. There is a third alternative (c), it has existed in some shape or form for 'eternity'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The simple answer is this, we don't know how/why the universe came into being. There is a third alternative (c), it has existed in some shape or form for 'eternity'.

I stand corrected. There is the alternative that it has always existed.

However, that delves into fringe science. Mainstream science, seeing that the universe is ever-expending, has concluded that the universe exploded into existence from a single point.

I guess you could say that single point has always exsited, but then comes the matter of explaining how the big bang occurred (again, without an outside force, an antecedent cause)

Originally posted by sumydid
I stand corrected. There is the alternative that it has always existed.

However, that delves into fringe science. Mainstream science, seeing that the universe is ever-expending, has concluded that the universe exploded into existence from a single point.

I guess you could say that single point has always exsited, but then comes the matter of explaining how the big bang occurred (again, without an outside force, an antecedent cause)

I said there is the alternative it may have always existed in some other shape or form. We have no conception of what occurred before the singularity.

The matter of explaining how and why the big bang occurred is, in Donny Rumsfeld Speak, a 'known unknown'. We can make no claim.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I said there is the alternative it may have always existed in some other shape or form. We have no conception of what occurred before the singularity.

The matter of explaining how and why the big bang occurred is, in Donny Rumsfeld Speak, a 'known unknown'. We can make no claim.

Well it wouldn't really be fair for me to pursue alternative (c) any further, since I said the "who created the Creator" was a diversion. So, here we stand.

Interestingly, almost all objections to God eventually boil down to what you and I are talking about. That means that this subject is of critical importance. And we're on even ground because it involves speculation on both sides.

Originally posted by sumydid
Well it wouldn't really be fair for me to pursue alternative (c) any further, since I said the "who created the Creator" was a diversion. So, here we stand.

Interestingly, almost all objections to God eventually boil down to what you and I are talking about. That means that this subject is of critical importance. And we're on even ground because it involves speculation on both sides.

I guess when Jesus finally shows up again that will be the end speculating. Till then, on we go.................

Originally posted by sumydid
Well it wouldn't really be fair for me to pursue alternative (c) any further, since I said the "who created the Creator" was a diversion. So, here we stand.

Interestingly, almost all objections to God eventually boil down to what you and I are talking about. That means that this subject is of critical importance. And we're on even ground because it involves speculation on both sides.

That's the reason why i asked that question. No doubt you believe this creator, ie. the God of the Bible, has existed forever. If you can accept a creator has existed forever i see no reason why you can't accept the universe has existed, in some shape or another, forever.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The simple answer is this, we don't know how/why the universe came into being. There is a third alternative (c), it has existed in some shape or form for 'eternity'.

Scientist have already proven to themselves that the universe had a beginning. That is why they came up with the Big Bang Theory so they could dismiss God as the Creator.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I guess when Jesus finally shows up again that will be the end speculating. Till then, on we go.................

To us Christians, who believe Jesus, He has already ended our speculation. At least He has for this Christian.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who created the creator?

The Creator has been in existence as long as He can remember and does not ever remember being created. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by kd2acz
I used Flavius because he was close to the time of the events taking place.

So timing is important.

When it would have been more ‘convenient’ for a Jew to leave out the details about Jesus and rewrite history, he did not do it.
I don't see why it would have been more convenient. The existence of Christians was clearly well known, and he reported that fact and reported on their beliefs. This tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not Jesus really existed.

To be a historian does not mean you have to be ‘present’ at an event for it to be authentic.
And I do not dispute that. But the presence of people claiming that Jesus existed prior to this particular account is not disputed. After all, we have some writings by them. So introducing this record adds nothing whatsoever to the validity of their claims.
If for example we were disputing the validity of your grandmothers claims, an account by you that your grandmother claimed those things would not in any way help as the fact that she makes certain claims is no under dispute.

Again,

I am not talking the existence of Christians and their beliefs, it is about Jesus Christ and that he existed and that there were accounts of who he was outside of the bible and what happened to him, that’s all.
And again, the account you produce is not actually an independent account but nothing more than an account of the existence of Christians and what there beliefs were. It has no more historical validity than me reporting on the fact that you believe Jesus existed.

Your comment show nothing except that during the writing, Christians still existed which was some years later after the resurrection at the time Flavius put it to paper.
It shows that the writer knew of Christians and their beliefs and could quite possibly have been merely reporting on what their beliefs were. He does not list independent sources for his information.

I don’t want to be rude, please don’t take this the wrong way. You don’t seem to be able to see the trees through the forest. My point has nothing to do with the existence of Christians; it has everything to do with a historical account of Jesus by a source other than the bible, and what he went through. Period.
And my point is that the account in question has zero evidential value for the reasons I have given. You present it as an 'independent' account when it is really no such thing.

In saying this, I am reacting to what I believe is the norm in these forums and that is to reject anything said by a Christian as being valid.
Well then you are totally incorrect about what the norm is. When Christians say something I believe to be correct, I will not dispute it, nor would most other atheists here. I and most other atheists will reject anything said that is specifically a Christian or supernatural claim, but that is not because of the speaker but because of the content of the claim. I am also always willing to justify my rationale for rejecting any such claim.

From what I have seen, arguments made by atheists rely on what science has found with regards to faith, spirituality, etc., or not found. One poster indicated to me that science can disprove the spirit, I disagree. Science is reliable, of course, for some things, not all. This is what I meant.
Are you saying it is an unreliable methodology, or that the claims that science can and has disproved certain things are false claims ie the methodology was not correctly followed?

My belief is that the physical world (science) and the unseen world (spiritual) operate in two different spheres, planes, dimensions… you pick which you like. Where is a contradiction when you are talking two different things? Because it cannot be explained does not invalidate.
If there is no interaction whatsoever, then the one becomes virtually meaningless. If the spiritual world has zero effect on the physical world then who cares? If it has an effect, then those effects can be studied by science.

The actions of a few that have formed your thought patterns do not represent the whole.
You are incorrect about my thought patterns. I believe religion in general is harmful. I believe that every single theist I have ever met is being negatively affected by theism. I believe it causes them to act and think irrationally. I am not just concerned about violent religious extremists. I am concerned about all their supporters that make such extremism possible, and I am concerned about the day to day side effects of religion, such as segregation, anti-logical thinking and general irrationality.

Originally posted by sumydid
Occam's Razor is not "violated" when an assumption is made. An assumption HAS to be made in order to come to a conclusion when no difinitive evidence exists either way.

In other words, you are so desperate for an answer that you make one up.

Things existing that came about without an antecedent cause is infinitely more complex, and thus is eliminated using Occam's Razor.
In what way is it more complex?

Originally posted by sumydid
Occam's Razor is not "violated" when an assumption is made. An assumption HAS to be made in order to come to a conclusion when no difinitive evidence exists either way.

All Occam's Razor asks, is that we determine the simplest answer to the question. A Creator is the simplest answer. Things existing that came about without an antecedent cause is infinitely more complex, and thus is eliminated using Occam's Razor.

The principle known as "Occam's Razor" is more satisfactorily described by Occam himself as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Considering the origins of the universe, life and ourselves, we have here two competing hypotheses; one of these involves the christian god, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal, and the other does not. Clearly, therefore, the razor suggests that the latter should be considered the more likely.

To suggest that the universe came about due to a miraculous 'creation' by an omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal being and that this is the 'simplest' explanation for our existence is, I am afraid, just asinine. Note that I do not suggest that your belief in a creator is foolish, but your insistence that 'god' explains the universe more simply than the materialistic scientific paradigm is quite simply incorrect. Moreover, it would appear to denigrate the majesty of the christian god and the miracle of creation, should such an entity and event exist and have taken place.

Originally posted by sumydid
We can address that, but for now it's a diversion. We are talking about this universe, how it came about, using Occam's Razor as our guide--the alternatives being (a) it was created, or (b) it was not created. If it was created, there is a Creator. If it was not created, then it came about without an antecedent cause, and any explanation for that violates t that all this came about out of nothing without a cause is humorously ironic. And wrong.

Blasphemor!!!

We all know that Occam's Razor is the ultimate truth and it is our god.
😠

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually neither of those things would come close to proving JC existed (as described in the bible).

You (collectively) really don't understand what the terms evidence and proof mean do you.

Prove that that is not enough proof.

Two can play at this game ya know. 😛