Jesus existing does not make Christianity true. Furthermore, the founder of the Church of the FSM is alive and well from what I can remember, and we have real, absolute proof of that, unlike Jesus who probably existed.
so now jesus probably existed? interesting.
this is a real good example of why people don't like you, swst. you're flatly changing the rules here. you asked for evidence that makes christianity more plausible than fsm. so far today i have ignored that and simply answered your replies, although i could just as easily have answered EVERY SINGLE ONE with 'hey, remember how i was only required to prove christianity is more plausible than the fsm?' i really HAVE to bring it up here, because you have changed the question.
but why not? to take your new evidence here and insert it into the original debate certainly isn't going to make ME look silly.
Jesus existing does not make Christianity true.
well, it's a good thing you never asked anyone to prove that christianity is true, huh?! because otherwise, i'd be screwed.
Furthermore, the founder of the Church of the FSM is alive and well from what I can remember, and we have real, absolute proof of that, unlike Jesus who probably existed.
there are multiple reasons why this is an absurd response when we consider what you are ostensibly arguing, that there is no evidence showing christianity to be more plausible than the fsm. you know them, which is why you are changing the questions, but just for fun...
1. you yourself said five minutes ago that jesus 'probably existed'.
2. you yourself admit that the fsm does not exist.
3. you yourself admit that the creator of the fsm idea does not believe it to be true, which to my mind, shows that whether or not he is still alive is completely and utterly irrelevant. only the existence or non-existence of THE GOD of the religion, like for instance, say, JESUS or the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, would be relevant in this kind of comparison.
and oh, what was that i recall you saying a few minutes ago? number 1? that jesus 'probably existed'? well, seeing as he is the basis on which christianity is built, his existence or non-existence has some bearing on whether christianity or the fsm is more plausible, wouldn't you say?
before you waste time typing 'but the existence of jesus doesn't prove christianity', please again remember what we're debating here. you've missed this point purposely for pages and pages of thread here. now you've argued it for me, so it would be kind of hard to miss.
1. FSM does not exist according to the creator of the FSM, on whom you apparently believe some measure of relevance rests.
2. FSM, if it does exist by chance, is working to hide it's own existence and deny salvation to mankind, since it chose as it's way to show itself to the world a demonstration of how religions are false, and that it itself is false.
3. christianity bases itself on the beliefs, acts, and existence of jesus.
4. jesus 'probably existed'.
do you see? i don't have to PROVE christianity is real. i've just shown you, for the nth time, that christianity is more plausible than the FSM. USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.