Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Theism at least provides a solution that life is created...
So does life creating pixies. You have to show your explanation is the right one for it to mean anything, which you haven't done.
evolution can't get that far as it fails every time.
This misrepresents as evolution only explains what happens after life starts which is a difeerent process to evolution. You have also been told this many times which makes your post disingenuous.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
and nor does Evolution prove anything ( heck ..just ask The Pixie... he thinks nothing in science is proven) .. Theism at least provides a solution that life is created... evolution can't get that far as it fails every time.
Another response that has nothing to do with what you were replying to.
 

Martin23233

Active member
So does life creating pixies. You have to show your explanation is the right one which you haven't done.

This misrepresents as evolution only explains what happens after life starts which is a difeerent process to evolution. You have also been told this many times which makes your post disingenuous.
ID shows that intelligence is behind the design found in all of life ( DNA for the slow folks) ... the code in DNA is nothing that the evo-devos can explain... the best evo's can do is say hey ..it was already there ..


Evolution can't create life... it has no scientific mechanism ... and feigns intelligence out of blind randomness which has yet to even be show scientifically... good thing for better science and ID
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
ID shows that intelligence is behind the design found in all of life
No it doesn't. It leaps to this conclusion because it can't see how else things culd happen, incredulity for the hard of understanding, and because it wants to.
... the code in DNA is nothing that the evo-devos can explain... the best evo's can do is say hey ..it was already there ..
Utterly wrong.
Evolution can't create life... it has no scientific mechanism ... and feigns intelligence out of blind randomness which has yet to even be show scientifically... good thing for better science and ID
Everyone agrees that evolution can't create life, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it means something here? It doesn't. In other words, more empty rhetoric from you.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
And yet it fakes it way along at trying to show how life that was designed is somehow random.... just can't square that one up eh? cool theory though... cute actually'
Just what are you doing here? No one takes this nonsense seriously. Surely you know this, right?
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Just what are you doing here? No one takes this nonsense seriously. Surely you know this, right?
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
ID shows that intelligence is behind the design found in all of life ( DNA for the slow folks) ... the code in DNA is nothing that the evo-devos can explain... the best evo's can do is say hey ..it was already there ..
ID doesn't show anything at all. It's not science, it's religion and, like all religion, is not based on evidence but on hope and faith.
Evolution can't create life...
For the umpteenth time nobody thinks or claims it can and you repeatedly pointing it out is pointless.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
" Anyone can shout “There is no God!” if they don’t need to ask or answer questions like “How then did human consciousness come to exist?” Or even “How did the universe come to exist?” If the village atheist wants to say that the universe has always existed (is infinite backwards in time), he is going to run into a huge logic problem: Everything that could possibly happen would already have happened, including the fact that we don’t exist. But we do exist. And human consciousness is still the The Hard Problem. "

How do YOU explain consciousness?

To paraphrase your quote, anyone can shout “God did it!” if they don’t need to ask or answer questions like “why it is affected by brain injury and drugs”. If the village creationist (or IDists, if you want to wear that cheap tuxedo) wants to say that God created consciousness, he is going to have show how that explanation fits what we observe.

Consciousness is a hard problem for everyone. The difference is that creationists paper over the cracks in our ignorance and pretend they are not there while scientists are learn more to actually fill in those crack.

But then, God lives in the cracks, so the last thing creationists want is for them to get filled in.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
Yeah, the whole grifting element of ID seems to escape its internet enthusiasts. They really aren't getting it...
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't really understand the question. If the resurrection is false, what need is there to explain the gospels? Christians think that all of the other holy books are false...whatever explanation they use for those, use the same explanation for the gospels.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't really understand the question. If the resurrection is false, what need is there to explain the gospels?
There may not be a need, but there will be an explanation. Of course, the question is designed to get Christians to think about alternative explanations as to why the Gospels were written than their own.
 

Martin23233

Active member
No it doesn't. It leaps to this conclusion because it can't see how else things culd happen, incredulity for the hard of understanding, and because it wants to.
You clearly lack the understanding about ID. you really should try to show more understand of things you try to speak about.
ID uses the best scientific tools available ... Very much like the science driven SETI program where 'scientists' search for design out of randomness and vastness. ..same principles are used to determine if something is 'intelligent' ... maybe SETI
Utterly wrong.
"DNA is both complex and specified. The arrangement of information is incredibly complex, making it impossible to account for its arrangement merely by chance. Furthermore, DNA is highly specified, containing the design blueprints to manufacture the proteins that make up your body. Therefore, the content of DNA qualifies as information."
Everyone agrees that evolution can't create life, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it means something here? It doesn't. In other words, more empty rhetoric from you.
Evolution can't even produce an existing gene or protein... and it hides behind the crumbling belief that there are someday going to be clear transitional fossil records discovered.... 100 years later they are still dumbfounded of the missing evidence they said would exist.
 

Martin23233

Active member
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
LOL... getting desperate there I see. but I use data and evidence to make logical decisions... but it's nice of you to try to post miss-information about imagined 'incentives'.... you probably know how much each of the scientists that have bailed from the evolution fraud ? Many of them are not 'creationists' but more into ID... or neither.... Funny theory though .. seems on par with your faith filled evo.
 

Martin23233

Active member
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
I guess if you miss the point about you spending more time here on trying to defend evolution..... it was a silly ashiest comment that I responded to and they just could not grasp that there is so much evidence that exposes them as just clinging to faith..and little fact.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I guess if you miss the point about you spending more time here on trying to defend evolution..... it was a silly ashiest comment that I responded to and they just could not grasp that there is so much evidence that exposes them as just clinging to faith..and little fact.
Yet another rhetoric-filled post that makes no attempt to address what it is replying to.
 
Top