I understand the process and so if the 20 witnesses agree, the discovery is valid. So what if there were 500 witnesses to a super natural event, and there wasn't any toadstools around, would that be enough to get you to believe that this supernatural event actually happened, even though the event was a near impossibility?

 

 

Yes, if you could repeat this over and over again and produce the same tangible results. So let JC show up tomorrow and the next day and a year from now and you got me. Until then, all you have is a hand me down story 2000 years old that sounds suspect.

The truth about JC being a god is very subjective and only seems to work for those of the Christian faith. If JC, Vishnu, Zeus, Allah or any other deities were real, it wouldn't be necessary  to convince people that they exist.============

   Yes to many Jesus being God is subjective, yet if one carefully studies Christ's entire life, then one should be able to honestly say with a doubt Jesus was God in the flesh. God through Christ came to earth because He loves us so much.

   There is one particular event that proves He was God simply by the fact that He was resurrected. He came back to life supernaturally and was witnessed by roughly 500 different people.

   I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. Corinthians 15 3-6. WEB

32 If I fought with animals at Ephesus for human purposes, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, then “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Don’t be deceived! “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.” 34 Wake up righteously, and don’t sin, 1 Corinthians 15: 32-34 WEB

   Paul in the letter to the Church at Corinth, made it very clear that if the resurrection had not occur, then we might has well eat and drink because tomorrow we'll be worm food. ( paraphrased)

   That shows that this resurrection had a purpose,and was supernatural. This supernatural event like,  many of the supernatural OT events, of the sovereignty and omnipotence of God.

   Is there any other religion which can make this claim? We as Christians serve a living savior. Again no other religion can make this claim.

   

"There is one particular event that proves He was God simply by the fact that He was resurrected. He came back to life supernaturally and was witnessed by roughly 500 different people. "

 

OH?? What 500 people? 

 Hmmm...did they count them?  Surely someone has statements from them testifying to this miracle?   How can this be verified? Names of who they are? 

 

Surely you don't mean because someone ( not too sure who)  wrote 40 + years after alleged event, and said "500 people"   witnessed it with absolutely nothing to back it up?

then one should be able to honestly say with a doubt Jesus

 

 

 

Is that the way you see it, gman? With doubt?

So what if there were 500 witnesses to a super natural event, and there wasn't any toadstools around, would that be enough to get you to believe that this supernatural event actually happened, even though the event was a near impossibility?

 

 

 

 

I know what you refer to, and no - that holds no validity with me. There is zero evidence that claim is true - someone just wrote that down. It isn't verifyable; those people didn't write personal testimony; we have no names; someone just claims that number to prop up their story.

 

If I told you there were 1000 witnesses to me jumping over a 10 story building, but didn't provide any names, contacts, accounts or anything to allow you to verify those 1000 witnesses...... would you believe me?

 

 

yet if one carefully studies Christ's entire life,
----------------------
And yet, all we know about is his birth and about three years of his adult life.  Everything else is guesswork and made up stories.
 
Again, you attribute more than what you know to the Bible, and yet you discount everything else that does not agree with the Bible.
 
And you wonder why people challenge your crediblility?

The conclusion is that not all religions can be true b/c religions are not the same.
-------------------------------
For example, this is only a true statement if one assumes the Correspondence theory of Truth.  If one assumes the Coherence theory of Truth, then all religions are necessarily true.
 
And by True, both theories mean the same thing.  TRUE with all caps.

Coherence theory strongly affirms my statement that opposites cannot both be true.  Coherence is a negative test for truth.  You can have 5 different religions and they each can be internally consistent and coherent.  That does not make them "necessarily true", however.  As you said somewhere, something can be coherent yet have no truth value.  Now, If any one of the 5 religions was not consistent or coherent, or in other words, contradicted itself, it would then be invalid and not true.

so, do we take a vote on what is true and what is not? Or should we just take the parsons (imam, mullah, shinto priest, buddhist monk, oracle, etc.) word for it

 

We always evaluate what people say for truth value no matter who they are.  Voting doesn't really make any difference b/c truth is not determined, it is discovered.  We look at the evidence for what corresponds to what we know of reality.

If I say, "There is a pie in the oven," it cannot be true that "there is a pie in the oven" and "there is not a pie in the oven."  If you agree with that, why is it to say "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" is a different case and that the religions that make each statement can both be true?
-----------------------------------------------
 
Because now you are conflating validity with truth value.  Two contradictory proposition can not form a valid argument, but if there is no truth value to the objects of the proposition, then despite the proposition being invalid, the truth value is unknown.
 
Basic logic 101 at any university or community college.  It is also one of the most difficult things for an undergrad to understand; that validity of an argument and truth value are radically different things.
 
You make a valid argument, but an argument whose truth value is unknown, and therefore meaningless (with respect to truth).

Are you saying that an argument can be invalid but still have the possibility of being true?

You may not know which statement is correct until you open the door but one of them has to be correct and one incorrect.  What about this?  When people believed the earth was flat, they were wrong, correct?  Well, if someone back then said, "The world is not flat; it is round," before the earth had been discovered to be round, would that person's statement have been correct?

 

Again, this is a physical reality that can be tested.

 

If truth claims about physical reality can be tested, why can't truth claims about spiritual reality be tested?  When you test for physical truth, you don't always come to the answer with absolute certainty, do you?  I don't think so.  Why should spiritual reality be different in terms of searching for truth?  That's the whole reason I started these threads -- lets test worldviews/religions.  I say truth about reality can be known, not exhaustively, not always definitively, but it can be known.  It is absolute, not relative to person, time or place.  And it is not contradictory.

Is that the way you see it, gman? With doubt?==========

Oops, forgot to proof read it again. Definitely without a doubt.

As you said somewhere, something can be coherent yet have no truth value.
-----------------------
Just to be correct, I said an argument can be VALID but have no truth value.
 
Validity and truth are radically different things, although validity preserves truth value, which is why it is so important in debates.

but whether it is pie or Jesus, there is a truth/reality about both.

_________________________________

You still don't understand (or don't want to understand) the concept of reality. Everybody in the world knows that the pie is there because they can see it, taste it, smell it, etc. There's no need debate about its existence.

The truth about JC being a god is very subjective and only seems to work for those of the christian faith. If JC, Vishnu, Zeus, Allah or any other deities were real, it wouldn't be necessary  to convince people that they exist.

Is that too hard to understand?

Do you understand the point that I was making?  I'm making a point about the law of non-contradiction, not what exists or not.  But I'll play along to make my point in relation to your comments.

 

You say, well, everyone knows pie exists.  It's in the oven, or its not in the oven.  It's not both.  You can look in the oven and you'll either see a pie or you will not see a pie.  You will not see both a pie and not a pie at the same time, will you?  Now, even if you had not looked in the oven, would that have changed the fact that there was a pie in the oven or not in the oven, but not both?

 

The same applies to God.  It does not matter if you know if God exists or does not exist, the fact remains that both cannot be true.

As for Jesus existing, those who doubt his very existence are in the minority.  There is no evidence to suggest he was not a real person.

______________________

There's no evidence to suggest that JC was more than a regular person living in the middle-east. Remeber that the bible is not a credible source as much as you want it to be.

 

Nor is it discredited as a source b/c you want it to be. 

There is no evidence to suggest he [Jesus] was not a real person.

 

That is nonsense.  What evidence is there of any person's non-existence?  There is either evidence for existence or a lack thereof.

 

I was responding to someone who said that historical references to Jesus were made-up and thus, he did not actually exist.  I was saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the references to his existence were made-up.

 

If someone were going around saying Harry Potter is a real person, don't you think you could find evidence of his actual non-existence?  Sure you could.

To your original point, I agree that the law of identity (or non-contradiction) appears valid.  That is, thing "A" cannot also be "not A".  However, as others have pointed out, someone can construct a valid agreement that follows the law of identity but which provides no (or unknown) truth value.

 

You are correct.  But, I never said that the search for truth ended with the law of non-contradiction.  It does eliminate the "all religions are true" (pluralist) worldview, though.  We just have to examine claims for truth value now.

We just have to examine claims for truth value now.
------------------
There is the rub though.  How do we do that?   What criteria are allowable for the evaluation of a proposition for truth value?
 
That question has been tempting philosophers for the last 2500 years.

Are you saying that an argument can be invalid but still have the possibility of being true?
--------------------
Unquestionably yes.
 
For instance, in logical shorthand.

All X's are Y's
Z is an X
Therefore Z is a Y.
 
This is a valid argument. 

 

I think you may have misread my question.  Your example is of a valid argument that is not true.  No beef with you there!  I asked you if you were saying in the previous post I responded to if you were saying that "an invalid argument can possibly be true."  I don't think it can.

 

But, when the propositions are subsitituted:
 
All blocks of cheese are more intelligent than any philosophy student.
Meg the cat is a block of cheese
Therefore Meg the cat is more intelligent than any philosophy student.
 
 This is a perfectly valid argument, that is nonsense when it comes to truth value.  Validity and truth are wholly separate subjects.  Validity is truth preserving, which means if you have a valid argument, and you have initial propositions whose truth value EVERYONE agrees with, then the argument will be true.
 
 

I agree with you there.  If you have propositions that correspond to reality (as best we know it, at the least), in other words are true as best we know it, and they make a valid argument, then the conclusion that follows is true.

 

Likewise, I can create an argument that is invalid, but if the propositions are agreed on to be true, then it has truth value of true.  Validity and truth are not the same thing.

 

I didn't quite follow you on the bold section.

 

Which is why I have pushed you on how you determine truth of propositions.  If you do not explain how you determine truth, then i do not agree with the propositions you claim are true.

 

We are discussing the truth of the propositions, weighing evidence and such.  The propositions I have made so far in the overall argument for Christianity are:  (1) Truth about reality is knowable, and (2) Opposites cannot both be true.