I would encourage you to learn how to think clearly, sir.

Thank you!

I understand logic quite well. I used to teach Critical Thinking at Coastline College and Golden West College in Orange County, California.

The "argument" that you presented wasn't even logically valid. Please try harder.

You don't have to "grant" or "suppose" that the argument is logically valid. If you weren't so lazy (or perhaps ignorant of elementary logical forms), you could easily determine that the argument is logically valid.

First things first: Do you agree that the argument is logically valid? If not, then discussing the truth value of the premises is pointless.

If you are too lazy or ignorant of basic logic to determine for yourself if the argument is valid or not, I will be delighted to provide a line-by-line formal proof of its validity for you.

Have a good day!

Since you apparently have no interest in a serious discussion, I will not respond to any more of your posts.

Having said that, I would be remiss if I didn't point out my favorite sentence in your post:

How would you know, Mr "claims to have teached critical thinking at a random community college"?

By the way, I am not merely claiming that I taught critical thinking at Golden West and Coastline College. I doxxed myself in the Politics & Society Forum some time ago, so anybody who wants to can contact those colleges to verify that I taught at those schools.

Sincerely,

Charles "Chuck" Kinzie

I'm not sure if that's valid since it's so clunky but I'm sure you could fix it so whatever.

I definitely reject p1 (there are other options).

I'm not entirely sure what p2 means but I don't see any reason to think it's true. That which can be done sincerely can be done insincerely.

And then depending on what you mean by "enduring legacies of love that produces sweet fruit from those who follow them" I'm probably going to reject p3 too.

Can you try to motivate the premises?

The argument from lagtight is that since people really really like Jesus 's teachings then he MUST be a deity!

Do I really have to argue that "just because something makes you happy, it doesn't mean it's true"! That seems so obvious it hurts to type it.

If this is the level of critical thinking at Coastline College then I would urge students to demand a refund.

Pretty much only an imbecile could read what I actually wrote and think that that is my argument.

Have a nice day!

The fool has said in his heart that there is no God. - Psalm 14:1

Well, I'm convinced. More powerful arguments based on sound logic. It must have been a joy to "learn" from you.

Apparently you don't know what an argument is. Psalm 14:1 as quoted isn't an argument. An argument has a conclusion and at least one premise.

I hope you experience great joy from the education I just provided for you.

Have a nice day!

Yes, your reference to Psalms is actually quite meaningless. "Just look. Our book about a magic invisible says that you're a fool if you don't believe in our magic, invisible guy. Check Mate!"

Amusing to rational people. Good luck with your myth. LOL!

First things first: Do you now understand what an argument is? If so, then further dialogue is at least possible. If not, see ya!

Here are *YOUR* premises (I'm QUOTING you):
***********

1) Premise: Jesus was (and is) who He claimed to be (Lord), or He was a liar or a lunatic.

2) Premise: Liars and lunatics don't produce enduring legacies of love that produces sweet fruit from those who follow them.

3)Premise: Jesus produced an enduring legacy of love that produces sweet fruit from those who follow Him.

******
1) I agree with #1.... but I think he was a liar/lunatic.
2) I disagree with #2. Liars & lunatics can have fanatical followings who profess happiness/love. Furthermore, terms like "enduring" and "sweet fruit" are vague & subjective.
3) Christianity made a lot of people happy... this says NOTHING about its truth. It also has been responsible for much suffering in the world (which similarly says NOTHING about its truth).

I'm not an imbecile. Calling people names (either directly or by implication) does not advance your argument.

I agree with the bolded. Like I said earlier, that is not my argument. Happiness is certainly one of the fruits of Christian belief, but only one of many. (Please note well that I never used the word happiness in the formal presentation of my argument.) The fruits also apply to unbelievers, such as the founding of hospitals and soup kitchens and charities, etc.

I know that you are not an imbecile. But your mischaracterization of my actual argument had to be deliberate unless you didn't take the time to read and understand the argument.

More later....

Regarding premises:

1. We have no idea what Jesus did or didn't say about himself. It's all about as reliable as legends of Babe the Blue Ox and The Headless Horseman.
2. The enduring legacy of the myth is far from a love story, and is in fact in many instances an appalling insult to decency, morality, humanity.
3. If the legacy of Jesus is the actual state of affairs in the world and in the church, it isn't a legacy of love.

This whole argument is just about attempting to smuggle in validity where the arguer himself knows it doesn't exist.

Founding of hospitals, soup kitchens & charities are nice but say NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD.

Similarly, the negative consequences of the church's teachings (vilification of homosexuality, the murder of suspected witches, the Crusades, people dying because of misplaced faith, injuries/death from exorcisms, persecution of scientists like Galileo, etc) also say NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD. But.... it doesn't help.

Maybe outline what you mean by the fruits a bit, and motivate why it can't be done insincerely or mistakenly.

The stumbling block I see coming is that it seems to me that anything which can be said or done sincerely can be done insincerely. I think you could argue that it's more likely to be achieved sincerely but there's not going to be any logical contradiction Jesus doing the things claimed and Jesus being insincere.

The other is that you're presumably going to have to argue that Christianity has "fruits" that are unique to it. As in, you'll have to argue that these fruits are not achieved by Hinduism for example.

That's leaving aside that p1 is obviously not exhaustive.

Lagtight, remember that time I asked if you had to make every thread about you? lol

Anyway...

Hypothetical 1, if the Bible only contains a single prophecy (you can decide which one) would you still consider yourself a Christian?

Hypothetical 2, remove that single prophecy from the Bible, would you still consider yourself a Christian?

Bonus: Which prophecy did you decide on for the first hypothetical?

Hi, BF.

First things first: Please answer my question posed to you in post #204.

After that, I will with great delight answer your questions above. Thanks.

You want me to answer a question you asked someone else, about something I didn't mention, before you'll respond?

How many religious experiences in how many different religions do we need before we realize they don't mean one flippin' thing about whether the claimed religion is true??

Oops, sorry about that. I confused you with Mightyboosh. I will answer your questions shortly.

Believe or not, I actually don't try to make every thread about me. It just turns out that way. (Not that I'm complaining, mind you.)


I'm not sure it's even possible to answer a contrary-to-fact hypothetical like that.

Having said that, just for giggles and grins, I'll give it a shot, anyway:

Fulfilled prophecy is one of the 37 reasons I listed in another thread of why the Bible can be trusted as the Word of God. I suspect that most of the other 36 reasons would still hold up even in the absence of fulfilled prophecy.

I'm grateful that it isn't something I need to worry my pretty little head over, since there are over 100 OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ Himself.

You told me fulfilled prophecy was the number one reason you believe. Look, I'm not into calling people down about religion (just their epistemology and bizarre, destructive defenses of it).

Just say already: "It's one of the religions. Like all the rest. Comes from the same place as all the rest. It's a system of morality and an attempt to understand the world pre-science. I will not sacrifice my mind and moral agency to what a band of primitives thought 2000 years ago who were into obsessive genital mutilation, genocide, stonings, witches, ghosts and bigotry." Amen.

I realize that neither thinking in general nor logic in particular are your strong suits, but that fact "prophecy was my number one reason" suggests that there were others as well. DUCY?

Why would I say a prayer full of lies?

The fool has said in his heart that there is no God - Psalm 14:1