Thor doesn’t existZeus doesn’t existKrishna doesn’t existBa’al doesn’t existAhura Mazda doesn’t existThe Demiurge doesn’t existA universe with no god doesn’t existThe One doesn’t existAllah doesn’t existAmaterasu doesn’t existJupiter doesn’t existTinia doesn’t existPerun doesn’t existDievas doesn’t existJesus Christ exists
all the “gods” exist, but only the god of abraham is sovereign
>>15101219How do you know
>>15101219Jesus didn't exist. He's a character in a story written in the late first century of which we only have copies from the second century.
>>15101251>>15101241Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[f] Accounts of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels, especially the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament. Academic research has yielded uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and how closely they reflect the historical Jesus.[18][g] Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was circumcised, was baptized by John the Baptist, began his own ministry,[10] and was often referred to as "rabbi".[21] Jesus debated with fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers.[22][23] He was arrested in Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish authorities,[24] turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea.[22] After his death, his followers believed he rose from the dead, and the community they formed eventually became the early Christian Church.[25] Accounts of his teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written Gospels.[26]
>>15101251>written in the late first century of which we only have copies from the second century.Incredibly good sources Thank you for proving he exists
>>15101260https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UNLLbOS3w
>>15101252>Academic research has yielded uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and how closely they reflect the historical Jesus.So basically everything after this is conjectureMuhammad apparently existed as well, as did the Buddha
>>15101219Wrong, christians believe all pagan gods to be real, but they think they are evil; nice job exposing your religion as one of retards.
>>15101265>a single person apparently claimed to have found the grave empty>a century later there are stories written down about him just appearing to people after this, accompanied by angels etc.I'll need a bit more than that to be convinced, thanks
>>15101277*or a couple of people, depending on the gospel, again, very reliable
>>15101219>The Demiurge doesn’t existProof?
>>15101271Have you ever met a Christian who wasn't from the deep south?
>>15101277do you want nonchristian sources affirming that christianity is the truth or something, because if a source affirms christianity it ipso facto becomes christian
>>15101260>Incredibly good sourcesA story about a magic jew. Great source bro.
>>15101252Most biblical scholarship is a crock of shit and no PhD level historian has done a peer-reviewed examination of the evidence except for picrel.
>>15101294Just more sources in general would be niceAlthough I'm with Hume on this, if Jesus rising from the dead made more sense than one or a few people (allegedly) finding the grave of their beloved teacher empty, and drawing conclusions from that over a century, I might believe itBut I don't think that's the case
>>15101316Considering the circumstances of Christianity in the first century being some obscure sect with only access to the cheapest, least durable scrolls available it makes sense that the only manuscripts we have would be the later ones when Christianity became the state religion with a few outliers from the 2nd century. As for secondary sources on Jesus, you could believe all the ones that already exist, or just say that they were an addition by christian scribes
>>15101271No we don’t retard
>>15101308Complete horse shit>>15101295Yes they are.>>15101277Your standards of evidence is untenable and retarded>>15101268They both existed and were false prophets
>>15101219Jesus was a man, while Odin is a God.
>>15101333Do any of the secondary sources mention the details of the Resurrection and what happened afterwards? The Gospels can't fully agree on how many people found the empty grave and what happened afterwards, who Jesus appeared to, what he said, etc.
>>15101345>Your standards of evidence is untenable and retardedStandards of evidence for miracles are different
>>15101343Dude that's literally the main theological position christians took to legitimize their religion against paganism and to debase classical pseudo-atheism, christians literally believe that haitian voodoo shamans are conversing with real gods, they just vilify them; you literally dont know your own religionhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_demonology
>>15101219BASED!
>>15101252But how do you know he did all that supernatural stuff
>>15101418It's in the bible.
>>15101389No we don’t
>>15101358Hume is wrong and so are you>>15101346Odin doesn’t exist
>>15101435>Odin doesn’t existYes he does, he created the universe.
>>15101433Great arguments from the christian
>>15101435How are we wrong?Why should I just believe stories of miracles that evolved over a century among people who were personally invested in those miracles having happened?When lying, mistakes or deception are much less implausible
>>15101456>The laws of nature are immutableProof?
>>15101460there's no case of them being broken
>>15101469Except for miracles. Oh wait those don't exist because the laws of nature are immutable because there's no exceptions to the laws of nature because miracles don't exist.
>>15101474name one trustworthy case of a miracle
>>15101495The resurrection of Jesus Christ.
>>15101498people just lied or were mistaken, its way more likely
>>15101219>Thor doesn’t existProbably he did exist (as a great warrior)*>Zeus doesn’t existProbably he did exist (as a great ruler such as Agamemnon)>A universe with no god doesn’t existIt most likely exists*>Ahura Mazda doesn’t existHe did exist*.>Jesus Christ existsHe DID exist*
>>15101505Why is it more likely?
>>15101460Hume:>A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be. Why is it more than merely probable that all men must die, that lead cannot when not supported remain suspended in the air, that fire consumes wood and is extinguished by water, unless it is that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and for things to go differently there would have to be a violation of those laws, or in other words a miracle? Nothing is counted as a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn't a miracle; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet often been observed to happen. But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country. So there must be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, because otherwise the event wouldn't count as a ‘miracle’. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, we have here a direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle, just because it’s a miracle; and such a proof can’t be destroyed or the miracle made credible except by an opposite proof that is even stronger.
>>15101509coz people lie or are mistaken all the time
>>15101358Why do you get to claim miracles are unlikely? Just because miracles defy the scientific method doesn’t mean they are unlikely. Defying the scientific method is part of the definition of miracle. To some extent, because miracles are rare only means they are unlikely to happen. Hume wrongly extrapolates unlikely to happen into unlike to have happened. That is a clear logical fallacy.
>>15101530You don't understand Hume's argument - he's talking about epistemic probability.
>>15101420Why do you believe an anonymous story about a magic jew written in the late first century in a foreign land and foreign language?
>>15101530Because a miracle is by definition an exception to a rule - otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle. If something is an exception, it's inherently less likely than the rule.>Hume wrongly extrapolates unlikely to happen into unlike to have happened.A miracle apparently being a one-off a long time ago makes it much less likely to have happened that one single time, compared to if it was even a semi-regular occurrence. You *can* judge the likeliness of miracles in the future by observing the past.
>>15101498Why do you believe a dead jew came alive after his corpse would have begun to stink?
>>15101512Humes claims that all human experience is unaltered and unalterable are wrong. He’s smuggling the premise that miracles can’t happen. If I may reformat his argument to make his fallacy clear>I know the world based on predictable experience >I don’t know things that have not been experienced by myself (or people I say are credible)>miracles defy normal human experience >therefore miracles do not exist>people who say they experience miracles I can exclude from being credible
>>15101571Are you illiterate? Hume never says that miracles can't happen.
Christianity didn’t even start until Paul big dicked the council of Jerusalem. All the apostles were just Jews that thought Jesus was the Jewish messiah. The entire part about Jesus being the salvation for everyone was made up by Paul, who’s only claim to apostleship is he fell off his horse, bumped his head, and saw a vision of Jesus (who he never described to the other apostles I wonder why)
>>15101227Spoke like a true born araboid looser.
>>15101219Amen
>>15101558But unlikely to happen is already part of the definition of miracle because it defies normal human experience. Unlikely to happen and defying normal human experience don’t make things false. Hume is just trying to argue the scientific method is the only valid means by which we can experience the world, except everyone knows things about the world we didn’t learn by science. He wants to say miracles can’t happen, so he’s created a framework understanding which allows him to exclude them. Except, we already know things that aren’t scientifically proven, so he excludes lots of human experience and not just miracles.
>>15101575Don’t be rude. Unalterable implies variations are impossible.
>>15101513What is the likelihood that an omnipotent God has the capacity to violate the laws of nature?>>15101512>firm and unalterable experience has established these lawsHas firm and unalterable experience established these laws? On what basis do you (or Hume) claim that there is any such thing as a natural law? What proof do you have that any such causality exists rather than a sequence of random events? Perhaps you have observed many men dying, but what justification do you have for moving to the conclusion that therefore, all men are mortal? Maybe today there is a man who will never die. It will not do to appeal to probabilities on this, for without some basis for such inductive inferences other than induction itself you have absolutely no rational basis for making them, meaning you have no basis to believe that it is even probably.Has firm and unalterable experience has established these laws? No. Hume himself proved that, and we are centuries without even the beginning of a serious secular refutation. What has established these laws is not sense-experience (which has not even taken a step in that direction) but the natural awareness of the creator who maintains creation constantly, which is innate and not grounded in sense-perception. I assert that no other justification can be given for natural laws. Nor does the existence of miracles contradict the uniformity of nature but presuppose it, since a miracle is not very miraculous without it. And it is self-evident that the God who designed and upholds natural law is also able to suspend it.
>>15101512>Why is it more than merely probable that all men must dieIt does not follow that something being our exclusive experience means that it must necessarily be so because we do not experience all of time from the beginning to the end, nor what is outside of it. There was a time when men did not die and there will be again, but we find ourselves in the meat of a sandwich between them. Death everywhere is exactly what we should expect at such a point in time. >But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or countryIt was observed once or twice, though it was not within the bounds of natural law, I do grant that. >>15101558This is a category error because it confuses the content of natural laws with the very idea of a natural law. Let's say there were a set of magic words which every time they were spoken the right way had the power to raise a man from the dead, without any exceptions. Would this be a miracle? Surely not. Its repeatable, uniform, law-like nature would place it definitively in the category of natural law. It would be no more a miracle than gravity. Hume clearly recognized this, because he said >>15101575"And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, we have here a direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle, just because it’s a miracle". This is an absolute and a priori argument, not a probabilistic and a posteriori argument, no matter how much you attach the words "more likely" to it. If miracles are automatically disqualified just by being miracle it doesn't make much sense to go out looking for evidence of them does it? The argument is absolute and a priori because it attacks miracles at the conceptual level. Hume's argument is not that the existence of miracles is not a fact, but that their existence *could not* be a fact.
>>15101616Do you include all sense experience under "science"?If so, what do we know that doesn't somehow originate from our senses?>He wants to say miracles can’t happenHe says that you shouldn't believe in miracles, unless there's proof that makes the miracle not having happened less likely than the alternative.
>>15101637I like the cut of your jib. Well said.
>>15101637>>15101642Literally none of this is relevant to the question at hand, whatever the source for our awareness of natural law the argument of Hume follows
>>15101637>the natural awareness of the creator who maintains creation constantly, which is innate and not grounded in sense-perception. I disagree. And even if you feel that, it doesn't mean you're aware of the Christian God.
>>15101693It does not follow unless natural laws are immutable which was refuted directly. The source of our awareness is also directly relevant because Hume was the one who brought it up- appealing to uniform experience as the basis of natural law.
>>15101650He defines miracles as > is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Seems pretty clear to me he is saying miracle didn’t and can’t happen, not merely we shouldn’t believe miraculous claims. He is defining miracles as outside a limited realm of valid experiences. The implication is obvious.
>>15101642>...Hume's argument is not that the existence of miracles is not a fact, but that their existence *could not* be a fact.Completely wrong. Hume's argument is that we're never warranted in believing in miracles, not that miracles never occur.
>>15101700If you understand my position you will realize how it could only be the Christian God.
>>15101704You literally said we have uniform and constant experience of God upholding natural laws
>>15101705>and such a proof can’t be destroyed or the miracle made credible except by an opposite proof that is even stronger.Why did he say this then?
>>15101712Could you elaborate even just a little bit? I apparently don't understand your position.
>>15101720Because he is bad at his own arguments. He’s not consistent.
>>15101727No, you're just picking short quotes and misinterpreting them.
>>15101727You're filtered, he is not denying miracles as inconsistent or absolutely impossible but saying that all experience is against them
>>15101219You don't say.Because a book says It?
>>15101738Sorry. I thought I showed he doesn’t understand the implications of his own line of reasoning. My bad. Thanks for showing me he is perfect with that irrefutable assertion.
>>15101727Ok, let's assume that the mistake was in saying "a direct and full proof", instead of that last part. Do you disagree that in order to prove a miracle, the proof that it didn't happen has to be less plausible than the proof that it happened?
>>15101219Jesus is long dead>>15101227The God of Abraham was invented by Jewish women to control Jewish men
>>15101742LOL. Okay then.
>>15101764Glad we agree, now please convert to atheism and refrain from posting these threads
>>15101758No, you just showed that you don't understand what he's saying.If you'd read his Enquiry, you'd know that the broader context of the book is entirely in the realm of epistemology. But if your position is so weak that you can only defend it by constructing strawmen, I think Hume did quite well in making his argument.
>>15101719I also said that fact is not our basis of knowing it.>>15101708It's a distinction without a difference here. His exact words are "we have here a direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle". Obviously, his objective is to assert that no miracles have ever occurred.>>15101726If you really want to understand, then here https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/calvin-institutes-christianity/book1/This is the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Read the first four chapters
>>15101759My understanding of miracle would be that it defies and proof except the experience of the people who were there.
>>15101777>I also said that fact is not our basis of knowing it.No you didn't, and our source for that awareness is still irrelevant>Obviously, his objective is to assert that no miracles have ever occurred.Looks like he succeeded
>>15101778It could possibly be recorded, if it's visual or auditory. But I don't know of that having happened.And when I'm deciding whether to believe in a miracle, I'm choosing between believing in something that I've never seen empirical proof of, and believing that the witnesses are either mistaken, lying or deceived, which I know happens all the time.
>>15101777>It's a distinction without a difference here. His exact words are "we have here a direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle". Obviously, his objective is to assert that no miracles have ever occurred.The problem with reading short portions of a text instead of reading the entire thing in context is that you miss all the nuance.Consider this: can there be something that is true, but at the same time can't be proven with arguments that are stronger than arguments against its existence? The answer is obviously yes. Now extrapolate that situation to Hume.But if you want to, by all means keep attacking a weaker argument that he never intended to make.
>>15101771It's cowardly to pretend like the argument is not metaphysical. If there's no metaphysics here then there's no argument here. His argument appeals to nature of reality (natural law), if that metaphysic is false then there is no argument. This whole discussion began with the words "natural laws are immutable". That's epistemology? No, that's metaphysics.>>15101798>No you didn'tYeah I did.>our source for that awareness is still irrelevantNo it isn't.>Looks like he succeededOk, so you just gave up the "he isn't denying the existence of miracles" claim, so I guess I accept your concession.>>15101809What you decide to believe and what is convincing to you is irrelevant because that is not the standard by which God will judge.>>15101818>can there be something that is true, but at the same time can't be proven with arguments that are stronger than arguments against its existence? Why are the arguments against its existence stronger? Because we have a metaphysical belief that there's no God who is more powerful than the natural laws which we believe are immutable. On the other hand if this God does exist and does have the ability to suspend natural law then the argument falls apart because miracles are no longer impossible, and therefore allowing for the possibility they occurred is no longer unreasonable because they can happen.>by all means keep attacking a weaker argument that he never intended to make.Yeah I think I will continue attacking the actual argument he did in fact make sorry if you dislike it.
>>15101777>1. THAT there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead>But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. >At length they bewilder themselves in such a maze of error, that the darkness of ignorance obscures, and ultimately extinguishes, those sparks which were designed to show them the glory of God. Still, however, the conviction that there is some Deity continues to exist, like a plant which can never be completely eradicated, though so corrupt, that it is only capable of producing the worst of fruit.I don't see Calvin saying that it could only be the Christian God.>some sense of Deity>a God>some Deity
>>15101771I am not a philosopher, true. And I have not read Enquiry. I only know what you and the others have been posting here. But I do know Hume is not making a solid argument if he wants to argue “uniform experience” shows we should disbelieve miracles happen, and he defines miracle as outside phenomenon. I too believe we should disbelieve claims of miracles we didn’t experience ourselves to some extent, but credible witness can overcome the standard of proof and at point we should believe something odd happened even if our own experience would have been different if we had been standing there. Especially if the things being experienced depend of who experienced the thing.
>>15101852>What you decide to believe and what is convincing to you is irrelevant because that is not the standard by which God will judge.It is relevant when deciding whether there is a God and whether he judges.
>>15101852>Why are the arguments against its existence stronger? Because we have a metaphysical belief that there's no God who is more powerful than the natural laws which we believe are immutable. On the other hand if this God does exist and does have the ability to suspend natural law then the argument falls apart because miracles are no longer impossible, and therefore allowing for the possibility they occurred is no longer unreasonable because they can happen.This would be a fine counterargument if Hume's argument were ontological and not epistemological. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. And since you can't address Hume's actual argument, you will keep on attacking a strawman.I think that when your opponent keeps on making up strawmen of your argument, it's pretty good evidence that your argument is good.
>>15101854What God did Calvin believe exists?>>15101864No, actually it isn't, because you are not on the bench and God is not in the dock.>>15101867This would be a great response, except it's not a response at all. I accept your concession.
>>15101852So where do we get awareness of natural law and how does that affect the case
>christcuckinoperable
>>15101879Anon, you're proposing an entirely novel and extravagant reading of Hume that no philosopher on the planet agrees with, and you haven't even read the work in question. Maybe you can read the book and publish a paper on it, I'm sure the world of philosophy will be smitten by your interpretation.
>>15101809I’m not so sure. If a thing can be recorded by physical media, is it really miraculous? Seem to me to be covered by natural law. Best example I can think of is conception of new life. It has parts that seem miraculous, but it is also covered by natural law. So maybe there are hybrid miracles that can do this, but many people don’t consider life to be miraculous because it is ordinary. Miracles seem to fit much more firmly outside natural law and all its trappings.
>>15101897Iirc Mackie proposed a revised version of Hume's definition of miracles, something like a causal interaction of an unnatural force with nature. This could mean a violation of natural laws, but it could also mean something like God simply introducing more energy into a system in order to ignite wood by natural means.
>>15101884We get our awareness of natural law from our awareness of nature's God, and this is preeminently relevant because His existence is all we need establish to establish the rationality of belief in miracles.>>15101895I don't have any respect for the world of philosophy, however. Is Hume's argument epistemological? Obviously. Is his argument metaphysical? Equally as obviously. An integral part of his argument was reference to natural laws. Please, tell me what a natural law is, and DON'T do any metaphysics, I want epistemology only. You are making he distinction between metaphysics and epistemology meaningless.
>>15101879The Christian God, but he doesn't deny that it's possible to be aware of some other kind of deity than the Christian one. Obviously he's biased towards considering the Christian God the only true one, but that doesn't mean he's right.>No, actually it isn't, because you are not on the bench and God is not in the dock.Are you denying my free will? My freedom to either believe or not?
>>15101227The other Gods are fallen angels decieving people who venture too much into occultism
>>15101918>We get our awareness of natural law from our awareness of nature's GodOK>and this is preeminently relevant because His existence is all we need establish to establish the rationality of belief in miracles.Alright now we know that miracles can happen, now show me that they DO happen
>>15101918And this is why you should actually read the book before talking smack, lol. Ever heard of the problem of induction? Yeah, that concept is from the very same book. Hume doesn't think we can say anything about the ontology of the so called natural laws. When he says "natural laws", he's referring to our phenomenal experience of things appearing to behave in law-like ways.
>>15101888>Le God doesnt existT. tard whose knowledge comes semites and freemasons
>>15101942Don’t feed the negative energy. I’m rather enjoying this
>>15101942There are more believable gods than the Christian one
>>15101920>he doesn't deny that it's possible to be aware of some other kind of deity than the Christian oneThat's completely incoherent, and becomes less coherent if you continue reading.>Are you denying my free will? My freedom to either believe or not?I'm denying your right to sit in judgement of your creator.>>15101934>Alright now we know that miracles can happen, now show me that they DO happenThe miracles recorded in divine scripture are examples of authentic miracles.>>15101940>And this is why you should actually read the book before talking smackWill adding words transform metaphysics into epistemology?>Yeah, that concept is from the very same book. Hume doesn't think we can say anything about the ontology of the so called natural lawsWow, that's embarrassing. Then my response to Hume is that the resurrection happened and it was total random chance, now what's his response?>When he says "natural laws", he's referring to our phenomenal experience of things appearing to behave in law-like ways.We can't form any conclusions about anything in reality on inductive grounds in that case, since we have no basis for our phenomenal experience having anything to do with noumenal reality. However, the basis of our phenomenal experience is the noumenal reality of God upholding creation, which also means our limited experience is not a basis for denying he possibility of a miracle, since we know better. See my previous point about the inability of our limited experience to give us conclusions about the "inherent" nature of reality.
>>15101971That depends on what you define as god.
>>15101587636 crosscuck
>>15102014>That's completely incoherentHe literally says>the conviction that there is some DeityNot that "God exists" or even "a God"Just some random deity, could have any attributes >I'm denying your right to sit in judgement of your creator.He apparently doesn't, not that I believe in the Christian God.>>15102027A monotheistic, personal creator God, but an universalist one, because Hell is an absurd idea, for example.
>>15102014>Will adding words transform metaphysics into epistemology?Reading more words might transform your understanding about what is being said. >Wow, that's embarrassing. Then my response to Hume is that the resurrection happened and it was total random chance, now what's his response?Probably cringing at the fact that you didn't understand his argument.>behave in law-like ways.We can't form any conclusions about anything in reality on inductive grounds in that case, since we have no basis for our phenomenal experience having anything to do with noumenal reality.Hume does think that it's not logically justifiable, and that it's essentially just habit. You can't stop using induction anyway, so what's the issue?>See my previous point about the inability of our limited experience to give us conclusions about the "inherent" nature of reality.And the obvious reply is that perhaps we simply can't access the noumenon, and throwing a tantrum isn't going to change that.>However, the basis of our phenomenal experience is the noumenal reality of God upholding creation, which also means our limited experience is not a basis for denying he possibility of a miracle, since we know better. Is that the presupp garbage? If you're going to address arguments that you haven't even read by vomiting out a script, I don't see why you're arguing in the first place.
>>15101940Oh so he has a definition that is different from common understanding. Fantastic. >>15101917Maybe this Iirc guy has translated Hume into English?
>>15102062>Hume does think that it's not logically justifiable, and that it's essentially just habit.And that also means his argument against miracles could not have objective merit.>And the obvious reply is that perhaps we simply can't access the noumenon, and throwing a tantrum isn't going to change that.I don't know how you missed the point so badly you think that's even a reply, but I want to clear some things up. The purpose of Hume's argument is to justify the metaphysic of naturalism and argue against the contrary. More importantly, the whole point of the reference to Hume that occurred in this thread was to assert that miracles did not and do not happen, especially that "natural laws are immutable". The Hume quote was posted in reply to a demand for proof of that assertion. Switching suddenly to an argument which claims to discredit the existence of miracles, to one which only claims to justify not believing in them, is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore defining natural laws only to mean "our phenomenal experience of law-like things without any claims about the noumenal" reduces the entire thing to a repetitive, meaningless, pointless recognition that miracles lie outside of our personal phenomenal experience, which is neither disputed, nor is capable of actually telling us anything about if Jesus Christ rose from the dead or not, robbing it of its purpose. >Is that the presupp garbage? If you're going to address arguments that you haven't even read by vomiting out a scriptWow, that's some butthurt. You don't even understand my point, yet you think it's a "script"? I don't think I've addressed any arguments except those I have read in this thread.
>>15102075It's clear what he means when you read the book, a significant portion of it is devoted to this. His project wasn't to write a book that random retards would understand from taking individual paragraphs out of context.Also pretending not to understand acronyms is kinda cringe, and trying to discuss philosophy without knowing who Mackie is is even more cringe.
>>15102014>The miracles recorded in divine scripture are examples of authentic miracles.OK now prove that they are authentic
>>15102139>And that also means his argument against miracles could not have objective merit.He's not arguing against the existence of miracles. Try again.>The purpose of Hume's argument is to justify the metaphysic of naturalism and argue against the contrary...No, it's not. You would know this if you'd read the book.>More importantly, the whole point of the reference to Hume that occurred in this thread was to assert that miracles did not and do not happen, especially that "natural laws are immutable". The Hume quote was posted in reply to a demand for proof of that assertion.I don't care how a reply was posted by some other person than me. >Switching suddenly to an argument which claims to discredit the existence of miracles, to one which only claims to justify not believing in them, is intellectually dishonest. I didn't switch to anything. If I want to paint you as intellectually dishonest, I can also pick out random comments and pretend that they're yours. Is that productive?>Furthermore defining natural laws only to mean "our phenomenal experience of law-like things without any claims about the noumenal" reduces the entire thing to a repetitive, meaningless, pointless recognition that miracles lie outside of our personal phenomenal experienceIt's not a definition of natural laws, Hume is just using "natural law" as an abbreviation for things appearing to behave in law like ways for reasons discussed in earlier portions of the book.>Wow, that's some butthurt. You don't even understand my point, yet you think it's a "script"? I don't think I've addressed any arguments except those I have read in this thread.No, I understand your point perfectly well. You're not only presupposing god, but arguing that everyone is presupposing god. I know the shtick.You've repeatedly made false claims about what Hume says, which is what I've been correcting you on. However, even though you haven't read the book in question, you insist that your interpretation is right.
>>15101942>christoid cannot comprehend that europeans had their own gods and if you hate his jewish kike deity you are an atheisttypical
>>15101219Thank god my boy Huitzilopochtli exists.
>>15102199You don’t believe in any gods retardAny no europe doesn’t have gods because they don’t exist
Psalm 82
>>15101495Marian apparition in Fatima, Portugal
>>15101219>be struggling irl>ask jewsus for help>situation worsens>ask thor for help>situation improves>I am supposed to believe that the former is the supreme creator of the universe and that the latter either doesn't exist or is an evil demonok bud
>>15101219>Worshipping a dead Jewish guy who most likely never even existedTop cringe
>>15101219>Allah doesn’t existHe’s god the father. Islam’s fault is not that they don’t worship God, but they reject God’s full triune nature. Otherwise, you’re forced to say that Yahweh doesn’t exist because Jews worship him alone.The rest of the gods you listed probably did exist, but are either long dead men or demons impersonating them
>>15101346kek
>>15101219And how do you know this?
>>15101420And the Quran says that Christians are filthy cross worshippers
>>15101219What's the evidence for that?
>>15102195>He's not arguing against the existence of miracles. Try again.I think I'll just repeat what I said instead because it's correct>No, it's not.Then it could not be relevant to this discussion or to the question of the existence of miracles. Unfortunately, despite your attempts at obfuscation, that is self-evidently the purpose.>You would know this if you'd read the book.Was I debating the exegesis of David Hume or the existence of miracles?>I don't care how a reply was posted by some other person than me. You're not as important as you think you are. >It's not a definition of natural laws, Hume is just using "natural law"In other words it's the definition of "natural law" Hume is using. Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.>No, I understand your point perfectly wellApparently you didn't, imbecile
test
>>15101219Weird atheist thread
>>15101219Yahweh exists but he's an evil demon.
>>15101219Christian missionaries:>Odin is Saint Michael>Zeus is Saint Ramiel>Ba'al is God the Father>Ahura Mazda is God the Father>The Demiurge is Christ>The One is Christ>The Universe is the Flesh of Christ>Allah is God the Father>Amaterasu is the Holy Spirit>Jupiter is Saint Zadkiel>Tinia is Saint Ramiel>Perun is Saint Ramiel>Dievas is ChristDante was a phag shitalian, even his contemporaries saw him as a retard-cunt.
>>15101219Prove it fag
>>15101219>>15106863It makes you think...
