Comment: Historicity

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Why is this downvoted? (see in situ)


If Antony Flew found the historicity of Christ and his resurrection sufficient within the context of all other historical facts and how we do history, then that should tell you something. The only reason he rejected it was basically that he KNOWS that it is impossible for a man to resurrect from the dead now (we've never scientifically observed it), therefore he felt safe in assuming that it was also impossible then.

I also call a huge steaming pile of bullshit on your "reason would have us believe nothing until it is proven". How do you prove something? How can science prove everything?

Prove to me, using the scientific method or reason, that all of reality didn't come into existence five seconds ago with the appearance of billions of years of age and previous events. You can't, and you never could using science or reason, yet you would be an utter irrational loon to believe it. Prove to me, using science or reason, that science and reason are the only means of discerning truth. I'm sorry to break it to you, but naturalism is a horribly self-refuting epistemology, and reason is not the basis for libertarianism. Ethics are the basis of libertarianism, and if you are a materialist there is no such thing as ethics outside of your own individual consciousness - you can't say someone is "right" or "wrong" to murder someone else with any authority beyond "I think it's right, or I think it's wrong". Materialism can only ever be relativism, because everything is meaningless beyond the subjective. That is not a world that sane human beings should be striving for (nevermind that every materialist is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to actually living out their own life, day to day. And thank God for that.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee. - Ludwig Von Mises.