Happy Atheist Forum

I have been reading Mere Christianity, by one C.S. Lewis, and I find most of his writing to be logical and concise. However, a few errors pop up with his reasoning, and here is one of them:

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

By this I think he means to say that, because we have conceived of a universe without meaning, there must, therefore, be a universe with meaning, due to the fact that for us to recognize the concept of meaninglessness, we must first have something with which to compare it. That thing is meaning.

I do not see how it logically follows that, because a universe is meaningless, I should be unable to recognize the concept. Could I not, in a meaningless universe, design a tool to achieve an end I have set? This tool would have the meaning of being able to fulfill my set need. If I can understand this concept, and there's no reason that I shouldn't, then can I not apply the "meaning" paradigm to the universe and wonder whether the universe has an end to meet? If I conclude that the universe lacks a meaning, I do not see why this should automatically give it meaning.

This is to say nothing of his liberal use of the term "meaning." He seems to be confusing an ultimate, universal meaning with subjective goals and purposes that humans set, regardless of whether the universe was created purposefully or not.

Forgive me if I am unclear. I'm quite sleepy.    Thoughts?

I go to the shop with a purpose, I write that purpose on piece of paper, it's as real as anything else in my life.  I go to the kitchen with a purpose, I may forget what it was because I don't make a list before I go to the kitchen.  So we can have purpose, and we can imagine a bigger purpose for life the universe and everything.  I think this Lewis thing is just another example of trying to defend the indefensible by means of the absurd.

Err I'm confused, what am I doing here?  That's all right son here is your purpose in this here book, but don't worry too much about the first half, that's just metaphorical, and don't ask questions because that displays your lack of faith, now off you go.

Quote from: "dgmort19""If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

He misunderstands evolution; just because the universe is dark doesn't mean creatures with eyes would necessarily not have evolved. They just wouldn't know what they were for, until some of the creatures with eyes figured out a use for them, or some way to create light. Read that into the analogy what you will.

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

I have yet to reach that section, but I have read about it in one of Christopher Hitchens' books. Rather odd that a man who has proven himself capable of deductive feats should resort to the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" bit.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

But I wouldn't consider it the most stupid argument; it's just got a bit too much tunnel vision to it....the worst is "Tide goes in, tide goes out....you can't explain that"  

Quote from: "Whitney"It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

I would assume God/Christ originated as a swear word because using those names in vain is considered forbidden.  Or perhaps the origins were in someone starting to pray while angry or praying for god to take vengence on someone they dislike and the phrases evolved into what people use today.  

People still say bless you when others sneeze yet we now know that a sneeze doesn't mean your soul is at risk.

I don't see how something being an expression has much to do with the truth value of ideas attached to that expression.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt""I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
"Oh Spaghetti Monster"
"Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
"Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
"Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"

Don't cling well.

Quote"Snow White damn it!"

Snow white is not exactly known for damning things

Quote"I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Doesn't cling well.

QuoteThose are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

Short, easy to pronounce and does not offend an actual person, living or who has provably lived, for those who care about such.

At least... That's my reasoning. I use different and somewhat more inventive curses myself.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

I would assume God/Christ originated as a swear word because using those names in vain is considered forbidden.  Or perhaps the origins were in someone starting to pray while angry or praying for god to take vengence on someone they dislike and the phrases evolved into what people use today.  

People still say bless you when others sneeze yet we now know that a sneeze doesn't mean your soul is at risk.

I don't see how something being an expression has much to do with the truth value of ideas attached to that expression.

The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

And yet, we don't.  Moving on.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

And yet, we don't.  Moving on.

I can dream, can't I?  

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"I can dream, can't I?  

You certainly can.  But this would put your name and thus your existence on par with God's.  Where's the logic?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

First off, as Whitney said, for the argument to work at all it presumes that Jesus did, in fact, exist, and the modern Gospels we have are correct when they say he said he was the son of God. Both of these assumptions are heavily debatable.

Second, it's far too simplistic in its reasoning. For example, maybe he was deliberately lying when he said he was the son of God -- does this necessarily disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? If this is true, he's only human. Everyone makes mistakes and slips up sometimes. Also, maybe he was a bit crazy, and was deluded into thinking he was the son of God -- so? Does him being a bit of a whacko disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? Et al.

Third (and this one ties into the other two), it ignores Occam's Razor. Which one of these hypotheses is preferable -- that Jesus existed and was the son of God, or that Jesus probably didn't exist, and if he did, he was just a man?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

Sorry, I was mistaken early. This is the worst argument for Jesus's divinity that I've ever heard.

I don't mean to disappoint you, AnimatedDirt, but common vernacular isn't based off of logic. What you're asking here is the same as asking "Why do people say 'I could care less', when they really mean the opposite? Where's the logic in this?"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

Sorry, I was mistaken early. This is the worst argument for Jesus's divinity that I've ever heard.

I don't mean to disappoint you, AnimatedDirt, but common vernacular isn't based off of logic. What you're asking here is the same as asking "Why do people say 'I could care less', when they really mean the opposite? Where's the logic in this?"

[geek] in the UK we say 'I couldn't care less'.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"First off, as Whitney said, for the argument to work at all it presumes that Jesus did, in fact, exist, and the modern Gospels we have are correct when they say he said he was the son of God. Both of these assumptions are heavily debatable.

Interesting.  (my emphasis)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Second, it's far too simplistic in its reasoning. For example, maybe he was deliberately lying when he said he was the son of God -- does this necessarily disqualify him from being a great moral teacher?

Therein lies the point of lunatic, liar, God.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"If this is true, he's only human. Everyone makes mistakes and slips up sometimes. Also, maybe he was a bit crazy, and was deluded into thinking he was the son of God -- so? Does him being a bit of a whacko disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? Et al.

You tell me.  What would you think of a person claiming as such to you today?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Third (and this one ties into the other two), it ignores Occam's Razor. Which one of these hypotheses is preferable -- that Jesus existed and was the son of God, or that Jesus either didn't exist, or if he did, he was just a man?

Whitney says it's a "tall tale".  This suggests on par with Snow White, King Arthur...yet none of us would swear by either.  To do so would be comedic.  It wouldn't seem hardly serious.  Think of it.  Next time you are seriously angry, try yelling out, "SNOW WHITE!!"
See if that doesn't bring a smile to your face or laughter to those that might be around you.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sorry, I was mistaken early. This is the worst argument for Jesus's divinity that I've ever heard.

I don't mean to disappoint you, AnimatedDirt, but common vernacular isn't based off of logic. What you're asking here is the same as asking "Why do people say 'I could care less', when they really mean the opposite? Where's the logic in this?"

That's because in your ignorance you don't know the correct words in this expression.

Thank you Tank for clearing it up for him.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"First off, as Whitney said, for the argument to work at all it presumes that Jesus did, in fact, exist, and the modern Gospels we have are correct when they say he said he was the son of God. Both of these assumptions are heavily debatable.

Interesting.  (my emphasis)

...I guess?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Second, it's far too simplistic in its reasoning. For example, maybe he was deliberately lying when he said he was the son of God -- does this necessarily disqualify him from being a great moral teacher?

Therein lies the point of lunatic, liar, God.[/quote]
The Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument argues that Jesus could not have been a great moral teacher if he wasn't the son of God. I'm saying that yes, he could have. Unlike what many Christians believe (cough cough Ray Comfort cough cough), the world is not black and white. Doing one bad deed does not make you a bad person.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"If this is true, he's only human. Everyone makes mistakes and slips up sometimes. Also, maybe he was a bit crazy, and was deluded into thinking he was the son of God -- so? Does him being a bit of a whacko disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? Et al.

You tell me.  What would you think of a person claiming as such to you today?

It depends on the person.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Third (and this one ties into the other two), it ignores Occam's Razor. Which one of these hypotheses is preferable -- that Jesus existed and was the son of God, or that Jesus either didn't exist, or if he did, he was just a man?

Whitney says it's a "tall tale".  This suggests on par with Snow White, King Arthur...yet none of us would swear by either.  To do so would be comedic.  It wouldn't seem hardly serious.  Think of it.  Next time you are seriously angry, try yelling out, "SNOW WHITE!!"
See if that doesn't bring a smile to your face or laughter to those that might be around you.

Let's bring out Occam's Razor again. Your hypothesis is that we say "Oh my God!" and "Goddammit" because Jesus was the son of God. A competing hypothesis says that we say those things because of how language evolves.

Hm. I don't know, they both seem so reasonable.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"That's because in your ignorance you don't know the correct words in this expression.

Thank you Tank for clearing it up for him.

I've heard people say "I could care less" before, when they meant "I couldn't care less". It's a common error, at least here in the US.

Please, please, stop saying I'm ignorant when you're the one that is.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Whitney says it's a "tall tale".  This suggests on par with Snow White, King Arthur...yet none of us would swear by either.  To do so would be comedic.  It wouldn't seem hardly serious.  Think of it.  Next time you are seriously angry, try yelling out, "SNOW WHITE!!"
See if that doesn't bring a smile to your face or laughter to those that might be around you.

A tall tale is a story that keeps getting information added to it till it is no longer true....kinda like when someone comes back from fishing and claims they caught the biggest fish ever (when they really just caught a somewhat not small fish).  As far as I'm aware Snow White and King Arthur are pure fairy tales, and I wasn't meaning to imply that the Bible is a fairy tale.

So, in saying the Christ story could be a tall tale I'm saying that perhaps there was a guy named Jesus who went about preaching (the possibility of this is actually quite high given the commonality of the  name and of self proclaimed prophets at the time) and had some followers.  Yet later when people started trying to write about him (it took about 50 years for the first recorded record of Jesus to be put to paper) they misremembered, elaborated just a bit (as was common with stories passed along by oral tradition), accidentally took some of his stories as true rather than allegorical teaching tools etc...before you know it they are writing about the song of God who did all sorts of miraculous things.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument argues that Jesus could not have been a great moral teacher if he wasn't the son of God. I'm saying that yes, he could have. Unlike what many Christians believe (cough cough Ray Comfort cough cough), the world is not black and white. Doing one bad deed does not make you a bad person.

Not the argument at all.  The argument is that IF THERE IS NO GOD, then Christ is a Lunatic and a Liar.  The argument is then, HOW CAN ANYONE place this lunatic's thoughts as anything other than thoughts of craziness and LIES!  Either He is Lord or He's a crazy person.  Full Stop!

You miss the whole point, I see.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I've heard people say "I could care less" before, when they meant "I couldn't care less". It's a common error, at least here in the US.

Please, please, stop saying I'm ignorant when you're the one that is.

I accept I was wrong in saying your ignorant on this if that's what you meant, I apologize for this
...but now we are left with you doing the same.

Quote from: "Whitney"A tall tale is a story that keeps getting information added to it till it is no longer true....kinda like when someone comes back from fishing and claims they caught the biggest fish ever (when they really just caught a somewhat not small fish).  As far as I'm aware Snow White and King Arthur are pure fairy tales, and I wasn't meaning to imply that the Bible is a fairy tale.

So, in saying the Christ story could be a tall tale I'm saying that perhaps there was a guy named Jesus who went about preaching (the possibility of this is actually quite high given the commonality of the  name and of self proclaimed prophets at the time) and had some followers.  Yet later when people started trying to write about him (it took about 50 years for the first recorded record of Jesus to be put to paper) they misremembered, elaborated just a bit (as was common with stories passed along by oral tradition), accidentally took some of his stories as true rather than allegorical teaching tools etc...before you know it they are writing about the song of God who did all sorts of miraculous things.

And the OT writings that pointed to this man?  The multitude of prophecies of the Messiah?  

Quote from: "Whitney"(the possibility of this is actually quite high given the commonality of the  name and of self proclaimed prophets at the time)

And the multitude of people in history with this name, specifically, Jesus the Christ.  I don't know of any historical figures that even went solely by "Jesus".  Only in our contemporary times do we see this, and mostly only in Latin America.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument argues that Jesus could not have been a great moral teacher if he wasn't the son of God. I'm saying that yes, he could have. Unlike what many Christians believe (cough cough Ray Comfort cough cough), the world is not black and white. Doing one bad deed does not make you a bad person.

Not the argument at all.  The argument is that IF THERE IS NO GOD, then Christ is a Lunatic and a Liar.  The argument is then, HOW CAN ANYONE place this lunatic's thoughts as anything other than thoughts of craziness and LIES!  Either He is Lord or He's a crazy person.  Full Stop!

You miss the whole point, I see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_ ... ormulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#Lewis.27s_formulation)

Quote from: "Wikipedia"Lewis argues that these claims logically exclude the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher" because he believes that no one making such claims could possibly be rationally or morally reliable, unless he were God. Elsewhere, Lewis refers to this argument as "the aut Deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man"),[11] a reference to an earlier version of the argument used by Henry Parry Liddon in his 1866 Bampton Lectures in which he argued for the divinity of Jesus based on a number of grounds, including the claims he believed Jesus made.[12]

I think it's rather useless to call someone a great moral teacher, anyways. We should evaluate each of Jesus' supposed statements individually, not just reject or accept them as a whole because of who he is.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And the OT writings that pointed to this man?  The multitude of prophecies of the Messiah?

Perhaps someone at some point thought it would be a good idea to claim he was the Messiah because they liked his message and wanted it to spread.

My main point is that we don't have to assume Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic in order to not accept him as Lord.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I've heard people say "I could care less" before, when they meant "I couldn't care less". It's a common error, at least here in the US.

Please, please, stop saying I'm ignorant when you're the one that is.

I accept I was wrong in saying your ignorant on this if that's what you meant, I apologize for this
...but now we are left with you doing the same.

I'm just tired of your crap.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And the OT writings that pointed to this man?  The multitude of prophecies of the Messiah?  

That's why I think it's likely that the whole story of Jesus was made up from the beginning.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm just tired of your crap.

That's why I think it's likely that the whole story of Jesus was made up from the beginning.

My "crap"?  Be specific.

From the beginning of what?

Quote from: "Whitney"Perhaps someone at some point thought it would be a good idea to claim he was the Messiah because they liked his message and wanted it to spread.

Have you looked at the prophecies and who were the holders/writers/believers in these prophecies?  Have you then noticed who were against Jesus in the NT?  Who pushed for His death?  This information is readily available.

Quote from: "Whitney"My main point is that we don't have to assume Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic in order to not accept him as Lord.

If He isn't who/what He claimed to be, what then is He?  Think of it as I mentioned to LS, what are your immediate thoughts of a person that makes such claims to you on the street?  I live in L.A. so there are many that do similar when walking about downtown, specifically on Skid Row.  I ask, because I know what I think the moment they open their mouths to utter such words.  If you want to stick around for their proof, what then would be proof that would convince you of their supposed divinity?  I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer.  It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer. It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

I would want to see him create a sauropod right in front of me. That's it.

What would it take for people 2,000+ years ago to believe it? About the same as it takes for people today to believe it... not too much and/or word of mouth accounts. For me, just a sauropod. But God doesn't present himself or his proof this way, and even to the people he was intending to talk to, it was through things like burning piles of yardwork or toast. These things will convince people. Statues bleeding, yada yada.

But who am I that I require such extraordinary proof? He's God, he could do it if he wanted. But, even when I was younger, he could have answered my prayers for, say, my back to not hurt as much, or younger still, "that awesome lego set", but he didn't (and that really would have been proof enough), so that being is ill deserving of my adoration as God.

I could be swayed by a created sauropod.

The Jesus character, if he existed, was a lunatic or a liar. Just like Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, or Mr. Applewhite.

And when a Japanese person accidentally hits their thumb with a hammer, I suspect they don't yell "Jesus Christ!", but rather, like everyone else, something more culturally appropriate.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"From the beginning of what?

The writing of the story...?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If He isn't who/what He claimed to be, what then is He?  Think of it as I mentioned to LS, what are your immediate thoughts of a person that makes such claims to you on the street?  I live in L.A. so there are many that do similar when walking about downtown, specifically on Skid Row.  I ask, because I know what I think the moment they open their mouths to utter such words.  If you want to stick around for their proof, what then would be proof that would convince you of their supposed divinity?  I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer.  It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

Something extraordinary.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer. It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

Create a rock so big that even he can't lift it.

Well, actually that would only disprove that the creature I am talking to isn't omnipotent. Even if it could do amazing things it would only prove that it is a creature that can do amazing things, not necessarily the God as described in the bible. Didn't it once kill a whole bunch of Egyptians to prove itself. I would be more impressed if it could unkill those Egyptians, and possibly unkill all those people and animals and plants that died in that flood that it chose to drown the world with.

I would actually be pretty impressed if it brought back Ronnie James Dio, Darrol Abott, Cliff Burton and got them to join a cured Jason Becker and a cured Clive Burr to create an awsomely inspired Metal album.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer. It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

Create a rock so big that even he can't lift it.

Well, actually that would only disprove that the creature I am talking to isn't omnipotent. Even if it could do amazing things it would only prove that it is a creature that can do amazing things, not necessarily the God as described in the bible. Didn't it once kill a whole bunch of Egyptians to prove itself. I would be more impressed if it could unkill those Egyptians, and possibly unkill all those people and animals and plants that died in that flood that it chose to drown the world with.

I would actually be pretty impressed if it brought back Ronnie James Dio, Darrol Abott, Cliff Burton and got them to join a cured Jason Becker and a cured Clive Burr to create an awsomely inspired Metal album.

It would also be pretty impressive if someone on multiple occasions said they were going to pray to the god of Abraham to do certain things and the things actually happened, things like:
AIDS/HIV gone entirely. Everyone who has it no longer has it and no one ever gets it again.
Cancer completely eliminated never to happen again.
People growing their limbs back.
No more birth defects.

If that happened, that would be something to consider that would be undeniable. However the power of god seems to suspiciously weaken as human understanding of nature and our technology improves.

Quote from: "Davin"If that happened, that would be something to consider that would be undeniable. However the power of god seems to suspiciously weaken as human understanding of nature and our technology improves.

The heavy rock, diseases gone, limbs growing back...See even these "amazing" things are not enough.  No one can even mention one thing God, if in your presence and at your mercy to do what you wish for proof, could do in your presence to prove Himself.  Instead, you all resort to rediculous things that are logically impossible so that you all can giggle and "high-five" each other.  "Something extraordinary"?  Name it.

There are many things that God cannot do.  He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few.  Omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING, it is the ability to do anything one wishes.  You wish, with a finite mind, to eradicate disease, bring back dead, perfect justice, a perfect utopian existence...and you call yourselves "Atheists"...you sound more like believers than disbelievers.

All the raising of the dead will be done, however the reunion bands and band member mixing will not.  When that miracle is realized, it will be too late, should that be what changes your mind.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"There are many things that God cannot do.  He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few.  Omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING, it is the ability to do anything one wishes.  You wish, with a finite mind, to eradicate disease, bring back dead, perfect justice, a perfect utopian existence...and you call yourselves "Atheists"...you sound more like believers than disbelievers.

And how did you know this?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"blah blah blah

Okay. That's nice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"My main point is that we don't have to assume Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic in order to not accept him as Lord.

If He isn't who/what He claimed to be, what then is He?

I thought I already said the 4th option is that the accounts of his life are a tall tale...this would mean that Jesus the person was not a Lord Liar or Lunatic.  This whole conversation originated as a way to show why that proof of Jesus's divinity is not a very good one...it leaves out an obvious 4th option and that 4th option leaves more room for doubt than just assuming he was crazy yet people followed him anyway (though obviously people do follow power hungry liars...so I wouldn't have problems with liar as an option either; just don't think that is the most likely reason for the biblical accounts).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If you want to stick around for their proof, what then would be proof that would convince you of their supposed divinity?  I've asked this of a few here at HAF and no one really has an answer.  It seems Atheism knows how to find scientific proof, but is a bit vague on what would be convincing proof if the Abrahamic God was standing in front of you giving you the opportunity.

There is an empty cage in the creationist museum which I would like to see filled with a new species with (the 10 commandments and reference to the true church inscribed within the fur/feather pattern) directly in front of james randi, Banachek, and Michael Shermer as have just been given a tour and shown that the cage is really a locked cage with no tricks and are then immediately allowed to conduct a full investigation to make sure no trap doors or other tricks were used. I think this would convince most skeptics yet leave room for having to take a small leap of faith which so many Christians think is important to accepting God.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"blah blah blah

Okay. That's nice.

^warning 2

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt""Something extraordinary"?  Name it.

I don't know man, I think that sauropod would be pretty extraordinary. Also, when I was 8, I would have accepted that Lego set as extraordinary, but nooooooo.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"There are many things that God cannot do.  He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few.

How do you know this? Is this based off of the Bruce Almighty/Morgan Freeman version of God?

QuoteThere are many things that God cannot do.  He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few.

If that's the case, then He is not really omnipotent. Either He can and wont, or can't and isn't omnipotent, and therefore isn't god. (Or much of a god, at least.)

I know, I know. He's holy, and therefore cannot do such unjust/immoral things.

Hasn't stopped him from doing quite a few other nasty actions in the scriptures.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If that happened, that would be something to consider that would be undeniable. However the power of god seems to suspiciously weaken as human understanding of nature and our technology improves.

The heavy rock, diseases gone, limbs growing back...See even these "amazing" things are not enough.  No one can even mention one thing God, if in your presence and at your mercy to do what you wish for proof, could do in your presence to prove Himself.  Instead, you all resort to rediculous things that are logically impossible so that you all can giggle and "high-five" each other.  "Something extraordinary"?  Name it.

Doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, did not Jesus heal lepers? Didn't Jesus raise people from the dead? Didn't Jesus feed the masses? If you think those kinds of things are ridiculous, then you must think Jesus was pretty ridiculous as well. The things I mentioned were not logically impossible, and I have a high degree of confidence in science to solve the problems as it has solved a great amount of problems already.

Already we have spray on skin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI) that comes from the persons own stem cells in just over an hour.
We are almost growing lungs (http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57511/) to use for a transplant.
Making the blind see. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100331141623.htm) Or the Geordi La Forge (http://www.squidoo.com/arogya) version.
We've already cured many diseases and birth defects.

While the things I mentioned may not be a miraculous over night thing, they are not logically impossible, one day we may wake up and see one of those things has been achieved. And all the while god seems to have left the "miracles" to be accomplished by man.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"There are many things that God cannot do.  He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few.  Omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING, it is the ability to do anything one wishes.  You wish, with a finite mind, to eradicate disease, bring back dead, perfect justice, a perfect utopian existence...and you call yourselves "Atheists"...you sound more like believers than disbelievers.

The point was that the amount of things god does decreases as man begins to understand how things are done. I was just mentioning the kinds of things that could be used as evidence for the god of Abraham, not things I believe in, because I don't believe anything.

Eradicating disease will take a long time and a lot of effort but it is possible as has been proven by eradicating many diseases already. Bringing back the dead seems pointless to me as I don't want to be brought back from the dead, I also think that no matter how good a copy of me it is, it will not be me. Perfect justice I don't think is even possible, along with a perfect utopia.

And for the record: an atheist can believe anything, as long as they don't believe in any god or gods. This kind of dig at "Atheists" is not very effective.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"All the raising of the dead will be done, however the reunion bands and band member mixing will not.  When that miracle is realized, it will be too late, should that be what changes your mind.

I won't take your word for that. The concept of a god not providing reasonable evidence for its existence until the point it's too late is nothing short of useless.

Quote from: "Davin"Doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, did not Jesus heal lepers? Didn't Jesus raise people from the dead? Didn't Jesus feed the masses? If you think those kinds of things are ridiculous, then you must think Jesus was pretty ridiculous as well. The things I mentioned were not logically impossible, and I have a high degree of confidence in science to solve the problems as it has solved a great amount of problems already.

The "fact" that Jesus did these things is amazing proof.  These cures were not carried out as we do cures for disease now.  A person does not get cured from leprosy from one moment to the next, yet the Biblical acct. states as much.  But we are back to you and others like you that cannot regard these ancient texts as true or even remotely true.  Science can and will solve many of these problems.

Quote from: "Davin"While the things I mentioned may not be a miraculous over night thing, they are not logically impossible, one day we may wake up and see one of those things has been achieved. And all the while god seems to have left the "miracles" to be accomplished by man.

You easily disregard that this was achieved 2000 years ago.

In 1905, Einstein wrote some papers;
"Scientists call 1905 Albert Einstein's annus mirabilis â€" his year of miracles."
From this article.  Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538324)
Now, just because we fully understand that Einstein was right and in the face of orthodox physics of the day, does that make his discovery and work any less "miraculous" today?
Does the fact that the Wright Bros. having flown the first airplane in 1903 make it any less amazing and miraculous because today we are able to fly back and forth from space?

Quote from: "Davin"The point was that the amount of things god does decreases as man begins to understand how things are done. I was just mentioning the kinds of things that could be used as evidence for the god of Abraham, not things I believe in, because I don't believe anything.

The only thing you are doing here is acknowledging that humans have the capacity to understand "miracles".  This does not remove the point that it was done prior to there being any such knowledge...it/they were truly miracles.

Quote from: "Davin"Eradicating disease will take a long time and a lot of effort but it is possible as has been proven by eradicating many diseases already. Bringing back the dead seems pointless to me as I don't want to be brought back from the dead, I also think that no matter how good a copy of me it is, it will not be me. Perfect justice I don't think is even possible, along with a perfect utopia.

I agree, perfect justice and a perfect utopia cannot exist in our world.  Perfect justice and a perfect utopia are, however, described well in the 66 books.  This is something we look forward to, but not here until all is made new.

Quote from: "Davin"And for the record: an atheist can believe anything, as long as they don't believe in any god or gods. This kind of dig at "Atheists" is not very effective.

Not a dig at all.  It was meant to simply say it sounds odd to hear those words coming from someone promoting the opposite of faith.  To mention miracles of Jesus and say, "It doesn't sound rediculous...".  If it offends you, I sincerely apologize.  It was simply a "hmm" moment for me.  

Quote from: "Davin"I won't take your word for that. The concept of a god not providing reasonable evidence for its existence until the point it's too late is nothing short of useless.

I believe there is reasonable proof.  Otherwise you're wasting your time with a crazy person.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, did not Jesus heal lepers? Didn't Jesus raise people from the dead? Didn't Jesus feed the masses? If you think those kinds of things are ridiculous, then you must think Jesus was pretty ridiculous as well. The things I mentioned were not logically impossible, and I have a high degree of confidence in science to solve the problems as it has solved a great amount of problems already.

The "fact" that Jesus did these things is amazing proof.  These cures were not carried out as we do cures for disease now.  A person does not get cured from leprosy from one moment to the next, yet the Biblical acct. states as much.  But we are back to you and others like you that cannot regard these ancient texts as true or even remotely true.  Science can and will solve many of these problems.

Given the successes of science in the past, I'm sure man will accomplish all those things, while god will continue to do nothing just as if it doesn't exist.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"While the things I mentioned may not be a miraculous over night thing, they are not logically impossible, one day we may wake up and see one of those things has been achieved. And all the while god seems to have left the "miracles" to be accomplished by man.

You easily disregard that this was achieved 2000 years ago.

If it had been accomplished 2000 years ago, why is it as if it hadn't been accomplished?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In 1905, Einstein wrote some papers;
"Scientists call 1905 Albert Einstein's annus mirabilis â€" his year of miracles."
From this article.  Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538324)
Now, just because we fully understand that Einstein was right and in the face of orthodox physics of the day, does that make his discovery and work any less "miraculous" today?
Does the fact that the Wright Bros. having flown the first airplane in 1903 make it any less amazing and miraculous because today we are able to fly back and forth from space?

I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. I had shown you the advances in science showing that if a god existed that was able to perform miracles, man has done much more than this god ever did. Jesus supposedly cured a few people while science has the potential to cure every one.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"The point was that the amount of things god does decreases as man begins to understand how things are done. I was just mentioning the kinds of things that could be used as evidence for the god of Abraham, not things I believe in, because I don't believe anything.

The only thing you are doing here is acknowledging that humans have the capacity to understand "miracles".  This does not remove the point that it was done prior to there being any such knowledge...it/they were truly miracles.

The point I'm getting at is that to man thousands of years ago, "miracles" were simply mans lack of knowledge of how things work. They weren't miracles, just people didn't understand what was actually happening.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Eradicating disease will take a long time and a lot of effort but it is possible as has been proven by eradicating many diseases already. Bringing back the dead seems pointless to me as I don't want to be brought back from the dead, I also think that no matter how good a copy of me it is, it will not be me. Perfect justice I don't think is even possible, along with a perfect utopia.

I agree, perfect justice and a perfect utopia cannot exist in our world.  Perfect justice and a perfect utopia are, however, described well in the 66 books.  This is something we look forward to, but not here until all is made new.

The perfect utopia you seem to want is a place where everyone just does what god wants, much like the 1984 distopia.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And for the record: an atheist can believe anything, as long as they don't believe in any god or gods. This kind of dig at "Atheists" is not very effective.

Not a dig at all.  It was meant to simply say it sounds odd to hear those words coming from someone promoting the opposite of faith.  To mention miracles of Jesus and say, "It doesn't sound rediculous...".  If it offends you, I sincerely apologize.  It was simply a "hmm" moment for me.

You do realize that you are acting as if your original statement was made in response to a response I hadn't made yet right?

Quote from: "Davin"If that happened, that would be something to consider that would be undeniable. However the power of god seems to suspiciously weaken as human understanding of nature and our technology improves.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"There are many things that God cannot do. He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few. Omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING, it is the ability to do anything one wishes. You wish, with a finite mind, to eradicate disease, bring back dead, perfect justice, a perfect utopian existence...and you call yourselves "Atheists"...you sound more like believers than disbelievers.

Then I mentioned that if you think the things I listed were ridiculous, then you'd have to equally think that Jesus was ridiculous.

It helps if you keep the conversation in chronological order.

Also, don't worry, I haven't been offended since I was like ten. I was merely pointing out your obvious dig that makes no sense with the understanding of what an atheist is and isn't.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I won't take your word for that. The concept of a god not providing reasonable evidence for its existence until the point it's too late is nothing short of useless.

I believe there is reasonable proof.  Otherwise you're wasting your time with a crazy person.

You may very well be a crazy person, I have no reason to think your are nor do I have any reason to think you're not. Just because someone let's their rational guard down in certain cases does not make a person crazy. There are many people who do not apply rational reasoning with their friends because they trust them, it doesn't make them crazy. Many people do not apply rational reasoning when listening to an expert, it doesn't make them crazy.

For the utility of talking to a crazy person: if someone does not show the errors in thinking that a person uses when talking publicly, then more people may believe the irrational reasoning than otherwise. Look up the Solomon Asch experiments on conformity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Asch), to see how easily a person can go along with an unopposed group.

Animated Dirt, you know how to get the party started.  

Now, on the topic which generated so much discussion, I believe I mentioned that C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Lunatic or Liar" argument was flawed. Where I was mistaken was to assume that this title accurately represents his idea. Though I had read it before, it had been so long that I'd forgotten how the thing actually goes. I have since reached the bit in his book, Mere Christianity, that illuminates his thoughts, and they are as follows.

QuoteI am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â€" on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg â€" or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Where Lewis makes an illogical leap is to assume that a man cannot be a "great moral teacher" while simultaneously, genuinely or otherwise, claiming to be God. I believe Whitney made this point already. Lewis insists that the only alternatives to the truthfulness of Jesus' claims are lunacy (a non-clinical term which, based on his "poached egg" comparison, indicates that he uses it to mean psychotic individual -- or perhaps it was simply his wry wit at work again...) or the Devil.

Firstly, who can say what motivation a man might have for claiming godhood? Financial gain, power, respect, or perhaps something else. Perhaps a man would claim these things so as to grab the attention of the public and spread his wisdom. We simply don't know. To leap to the conclusion that Jesus must have been either correct, or else a psychotic Jew/devil, is to neglect the possibility that he was both a "great moral teacher" and a liar who saw fit to say this thing about himself.

Furthermore, assuming he was human, what if he really believed it? What if this extreme delusion was the only symptom of his mental illness? Could he not also be a "great moral teacher" then?

Quote from: "dgmort19"Animated Dirt, you know how to get the party started.  

Now, on the topic which generated so much discussion, I believe I mentioned that C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Lunatic or Liar" argument was flawed. Where I was mistaken was to assume that this title accurately represents his idea. Though I had read it before, it had been so long that I'd forgotten how the thing actually goes. I have since reached the bit in his book, Mere Christianity, that illuminates his thoughts, and they are as follows.

QuoteI am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â€" on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg â€" or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Where Lewis makes an illogical leap is to assume that a man cannot be a "great moral teacher" while simultaneously, genuinely or otherwise, claiming to be God. I believe Whitney made this point already. Lewis insists that the only alternatives to the truthfulness of Jesus' claims are lunacy (a non-clinical term which, based on his "poached egg" comparison, indicates that he uses it to mean psychotic individual -- or perhaps it was simply his wry wit at work again...) or the Devil.

Firstly, who can say what motivation a man might have for claiming godhood? Financial gain, power, respect, or perhaps something else. Perhaps a man would claim these things so as to grab the attention of the public and spread his wisdom. We simply don't know. To leap to the conclusion that Jesus must have been either correct, or else a psychotic Jew/devil, is to neglect the possibility that he was both a "great moral teacher" and a liar who saw fit to say this thing about himself.

Furthermore, assuming he was human, what if he really believed it? What if this extreme delusion was the only symptom of his mental illness? Could he not also be a "great moral teacher" then?

The problem here, dgmort19 is that this Jesus, while "simply" claiming to be God...didn't simply claim to be "God", but the Creator and Sustainer of life...more so, the SAME GOD of the OT, in human form.  The very "I AM" from the OT and one reason the Jewish leaders set out to kill Him.

Now couple this with the notion from Event_Horizon;

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"However my second point was that looking at the overall Christian narrative which retroactively characterizes God in the later works of the New Testament causes problems with that already dubious consistency. Obviously the later works and the original story have two vastly different characters for God.

from this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6706#p101685) and many others that claim the OT God and NT God CANNOT be the same God.  When you see it from this perspective, then you see the "Lunacy" point.  I think Event_Horizon mentions the point again in a bit more detail, I coudn't find it though.

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

Possibilities are [strike:1cljfae9]infinite[/strike:1cljfae9] (oh wait...some person told me using infinite is infantile) seemingly abundant.  Let's stick with what IS written and claimed, that way we have a basis for argument/discussion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

Possibilities are [strike:3s28k7lb]infinite[/strike:3s28k7lb] (oh wait...some person told me using infinite is infantile) seemingly abundant.  Let's stick with what IS written and claimed, that way we have a basis for argument/discussion.

I have no idea who told you that. What I had written is in response to what you had written and claimed, thereby maintaining your proposed basis for argument/discussion. It's still a fallacy, and a pretty clear one.

QuoteChrist is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

Quote from: "dgmort19"But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

Great morals?  This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?  If He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?  How can He then be great or anything other than a liar, lunatic, or crazy?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "dgmort19"But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

Great morals?  This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?  If He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?  How can He then be great or anything other than a liar, lunatic, or crazy?

No matter how much we try to explain this to you, I have the feeling you won't get it from our point of view, so we should agree to disagree.

I agree that if he wasn't the son of God, he wasn't anything special -- and since I don't think he is, I don't think he is.

QuoteNo matter how much we try to explain this to you, I have the feeling you won't get it from our point of view, so we should agree to disagree.

I concur, and this is the trouble of philosophical/religious debate. I am not, however, quite ready to throw my hands up.

QuoteGreat morals? This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?

He does not have to be crazy. That is one of my points. If this is a lie of which he is consciously aware, I do not see how this intrudes into the validity of his less supernatural moral observations. Even if he does believe it, the same stands true of his moral teachings. So he believes he's God. What impact does this have on his idea of turning the other cheek? To insist that he cannot be a great moral teacher because he harbors a specific delusion is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

e.g. "Yeah, turn the other cheek SOUNDS great and all, but look who it came from; Nutter Butter over there."

QuoteIf He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?

Is Einstein unimpressive because someone was eventually bound to generate the theory of relativity?