Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on July 19, 2015, 11:09:49 PM
-
Once you do it all kinda makes sense...
-
Once you do it all kinda makes sense...
What, in your opinion, is the correct order?
-
And how do you KNOW it's the 'correct order' anyway.??
What about all those 'ADDED EXTRAS'?????
-
Once you do it all kinda makes sense...
Are you referring to the order in which it was written - so some of Paul's stuff first, followed by Mark's Gospel, followed by more of Paul's stuff, etc., etc.?
-
The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?
-
The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?
?
-
The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?
?
I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all; and some Christians, too.
-
I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all; and some Christians, too.
I've read it. I can't speak for anyone else. Of course, I read it with an open mind and subsequently failed to accept its supernatural premise or extra-scientific claims whilst like some (but not all) of the underlying, clumsy attempts at a moral framework. A definite improvement on the first work in the series, but the later attempts went downhill again, I'm afraid.
O.
-
The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?
?
I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all; and some Christians, too.
which atheists?
-
The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?
?
I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all; and some Christians, too.
which atheists?
From my considerable experience, almost all atheists. I wonder why a person who rejects theism would still read about it in detail. The honest truth is, they don't. I suggest the few who do, do so without the help of any kind of commentary - we all need that to even begin to understand much of what is being said: and again, what atheist allocates the hours of time needed to read through such a commentary, and also acquaint themselves with all the necessary historical back ground? Even theists, committed people, find it hard to follow such a disciplined and demanding regime - it's a long way off from doing a quick google. Even allowing some odd atheists do all that, it doesn't mean they understand it all, or appreciate all the nuances inherent.
-
I wonder why a person who rejects theism would still read about it in detail.
... because we live in a world where some people who believe it have positions of authority and influence and attempt to impose those beliefs on everyone. 'Know your enemy', as they say.
I suggest the few who do, do so without the help of any kind of commentary - we all ned that to even begin to understand much of what is being said: and again, what atheist allocates the hours of time needed to read through such a commentary, and also acquaint themselves with all the necessary historical back ground?
Any number of atheists theologians, philosophers, historians and amateurs with an interest. I have read a variety of commentaries, from the obviously informed to the obviously uninformed, and I still don't accept the underlying premises.
Even theists, committed people, find it hard to follow such a disciplined and demanding regime - it's a long way off from doing a quick google. Even allowing some odd atheists do all that, it doesn't mean they understand it all, or appreciate all the nuances inherent.
Or, conversely, it doesn't mean that theists, having spent all that time encountering various commentaries, actually understand it, or appreciate all the nuances inherent, and therefore still think that it has some validity. Either is possible, you actually have to justify falling on one side or the other, not just say that it's possible as an implication that it is the case.
O.
-
... because we live in a world where some people who believe it have positions of authority and influence and attempt to impose those beliefs on everyone. 'Know your enemy', as they say.
Sorry, don't accept that. If you don't accept it, move on. Simple as that And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.
And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all: I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects; and it has been a life-time study. For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
-
Sorry, don't accept that. If you don't accept it, move on. Simple as that And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.
And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?
Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.
To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.
And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all: I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects; and it has been a life-time study. For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.
You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.
Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
O.
[/quote]
-
For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
SO what you're saying is....
If NON Christians understand it they'll become Christian ????
Do you fully understand Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? No should be your answer, eh?
-
Sorry, don't accept that. If you don't accept it, move on. Simple as that And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.
And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?
Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.
To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.
And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all: I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects; and it has been a life-time study. For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.
You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.
Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
O.
[/quote]
There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes. And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly. If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away. Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!. And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.
-
There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.
There are things they can prevent you doing, and until recently there were a lot more, and if some of them (not all) had there way then there would be attempts to force people to comply with their religious edicts.
And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.
For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.
If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate. Walk away from the Lords, and from schooling.
Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.
Make a difference to anyone else? Who knows, I do this for practice and personal amusement.
And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.
You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.
O.
-
There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.
There are things they can prevent you doing,
If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.
What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?
-
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.
What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?
That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.
O.
-
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.
What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?
That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.
O.
The fact is, either you have some manner of psychological hang-up that compels you to spend so much time on your anti-religion complex; or else, as you suggest, it is amusing to you. If the former, take some advice; if the latter, don't be so insensitive and offensive.
I might remind you of the title of this thread, and I still maintain that you have not read the New Testament, and most certainly do not have an in-depth knowledge of it, despite any assertions otherwise.
-
The fact is, either you have some manner of psychological hang-up that compels you to spend so much time on your anti-religion complex; or else, as you suggest, it is amusing to you. If the former, take some advice; if the latter, don't be so insensitive and offensive.
How is it insensitive and offensive to point out that you have a world-view that is based on no reputable evidence? If you don't want to be exposed to those sorts of opinions, why come to a board like this?
I might remind you of the title of this thread, and I still maintain that you have not read the New Testament, and most certainly do not have an in-depth knowledge of it, despite any assertions otherwise.
And you can assert that as much as you like, but you've not done anything to even attempt to demonstrate the fact, you've simply repeated the previous unevidenced and unsupported claim. I could remind you of the title, because I still haven't seen somebody explain what it is that's considered the 'correct' order.
O.
-
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.
What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?
That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.
I can't see how it depends on that. My views might me ones you vehemently disagree with or they might be ones you like. In either case, how does my engagement in debate stop you from doing anything at all?
Nice dodge though.
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
If you have read it with the help of other views, gleaned from commentaries, then you make up your mind on the basis of what you think, and with the added advantage of other informed views. I am not talking of those who read it through without researching any of the possible nuances. If that's what you are doing, then you've wasted a lot of time. And I suggest that's what atheists do.
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?
With such an attitude, it once again begs the question, " what the heck are you doing on here blathering about it?"
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?
I am not with you?
-
Of course, I read it with an open mind and subsequently failed to accept its supernatural premise or extra-scientific claims ...
Can you honestly do the former, and necessarily do the latter? After all, many others have done the former and come to an opposite conclusion regarding the later.
A definite improvement on the first work in the series, but the later attempts went downhill again, I'm afraid.
What would those 'later attempts' be?
Regarding the moral framework, I can understand why you and others are less than keen on it since it challenged so many of the social mores of the day, and continues to challenge the social mores of today.
-
And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted?
Some people, including those outside of religion continue to refuse that gay marriage is permitted on the grounds that marriage can't be between two or more people of the same gender. The idea that this is 'religiously motivated' seems to ignore the fact that, as we are constantly told, the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist at the time that the Scriptures of the main world religions were written.
If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?
Has British society accepted it?
Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.
It seems to be the 'argumentuum ad populum' that is winning at present, even though there is a general agreement that it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, so 'winning' might not be the rifght term.
Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.
You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.
Sums up my opinion on the belief in science that some here seem to profess.
-
Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking????
-
There are things they can prevent you doing, and until recently there were a lot more, and if some of them (not all) had there way then there would be attempts to force people to comply with their religious edicts.
So, religious people are really no different to other people: many groups have attempted to force people to comply with their (often political) edicts.
And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.
For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.
Do they? If you really think this, then I pity any children you are/have been responsible for.
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate. Walk away from the Lords, and from schooling.
Why walk away from issues that I believe have serious impacts on society? After all, why would I walk away from my belief and long-time campaigning for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.
You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.
Which is largely why I dismiss your position.
-
Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking????
Are there? Perhaps we might ask why there are fewer atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims in the world - relatively speaking?
-
Once you do it all kinda makes sense...
What, in your opinion, is the correct order?
Bumped for Thrud's addressing.
-
Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking????
Are there? Perhaps we might ask why there are fewer atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims in the world - relatively speaking?
That's what I'm on about. Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other. Who's group will be far biggest???
-
Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of it.
Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?
I am not with you?
You're saying no-one really has in depth knowledge of the NT, just their own interpretations of it.
-
That's what I'm on about. Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other. Who's group will be far biggest???
But lumping everyone 'else' together on one side is nonsensical. If you really want to be logical and rational you have to put those who believe in a God/supreme being/gods - external being(s) in other words - on one side, and those who don't on the other. Currently, the one side totals (on 2010 figures - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) about 12%; the other about 88%. Lets say that globally there has been a change of 2% year on year towards the nons - such that they are now about 25%, and the others about 75%. (Does anyone have any such global figures, as opposed to those for the West alone?). That's still quite some deficit for you to explain, Nick. I suppose we could even break the figures down to practising and nominal, but that might suggest that the 9+% of non-religious (as opposed to atheists) in 2010 have to be given their own statistical segment, such that in 2010, atheists were only 2.01% of the world population. The concept of your question simply doesn't make sense.
-
Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?
That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ????
-
Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?
That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ????
Where do you get this idea from? I base my argument on the fact that, whilst people of different faiths may not agree with or even accept the details of other faiths, at least they have the same underlying concept in their minds - that of the existence of a supra-natural being/entity that is outside of space and time. Why would you lump atheists in with Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs, animists and Buddhists?
-
I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ????
NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!
What does this mean????
-
I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ????
NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!
What does this mean????
Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
-
WELL YOU'RE not a Christian, are you ?!?!!?!? ;)
-
I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ????
From your posts #28 and 32. You say "Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other." (#32)
NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!
What does this mean????
John 14:6 & 7 actually says λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ. εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ᾔδειτε· ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν.
which translates as Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. (NIVUK)
The Message combines verses 6 and 7 and goes Jesus said, "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him. You’ve even seen him!"
Notice that there is no reference to 'my' Father. The reference is to 'the' Father; the Father of creation.
-
Nothing, the father of Joseph was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
As I have pointed out to Nick, there is no reference to 'my' father, Floo. Rather, the reference is to 'the' father. Clearly, that is a completely different concept.
-
Nothing, the father of Joseph was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
As I have pointed out to Nick, there is no reference to 'my' father, Floo. Rather, the reference is to 'the' father. Clearly, that is a completely different concept.
OK!
-
The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers.
Good to see that your hackneyed excuses for non-belief being repeated for the nth time, Floo. Unfortunately, many linguists don't hold your prejudiced, confirmation biased, views - even if they don't believe in the divine nature of Christ.
Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, Floo? It's a pretty steep claim when the Jewish authorities of the time would have been able to prove it had it been true.
The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
Only if you believe that science is the be-all and end-all of reality.
-
The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers.
Good to see that your hackneyed excuses for non-belief being repeated for the nth time, Floo. Unfortunately, many linguists don't hold your prejudiced, confirmation biased, views - even if they don't believe in the divine nature of Christ.
Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, Floo? It's a pretty steep claim when the Jewish authorities of the time would have been able to prove it had it been true.
The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
Only if you believe that science is the be-all and end-all of reality.
I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware. As Jesus, died well before anything was written down about him by the gospel authors we don't know for sure how much credibility anything attributed to Jesus has.
I hope scientific verification is the be-all and end-all, and will explain why some people are so hell bent on wanting the 'supernatural' to be their reality.
-
I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware. As Jesus, died well before anything was written down about him by the gospel authors we don't know for sure how much credibility anything attributed to Jesus has.
Floo, in view of your clear lack of understanding of 1st century Palestine, of the difference between oral and literary communication traditions and your determination to judge everything and everyone through 20th/21st century spectacles (even to the extent of preferring a culture that seems to revel in some of the most egregious behaviour that humanity can stoop to over less developed, more humane cultures), my I suggest that you give up your uneducated pontifications.
I hope scientific verification is the be-all and end-all, and will explain why some people are so hell bent on wanting the 'supernatural' to be their reality.
As I've said before, if you only rely on scientific verification for your reality, you must be living in a pretty narrow relaity. After all, we are constantly being told that yesteryear's scientific verification is today's scientific mistake/misinterpretation.
-
Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.
-
I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ????
NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!
What does this mean????
Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
What a crude and nasty-worded post! Some people pretend to be so goody-goody, but now and again the veneer of respectability slips.
-
Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.
Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?
True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.
ippy
-
Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.
Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?
True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.
ippy
Here's one for you, Ippy: "If a scientist says something is possible, he is probably right; if a scientist says something is impossible, he is probably wrong." Who said that?
-
Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.
Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?
True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.
ippy
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
-
If you really want to be logical and rational you have to put those who believe in a God/supreme being/gods - external being(s) in other words - on one side, and those who don't on the other.
Why would you do that when people of different religions believe in different (often mutually exclusive) gods and frequently kill each other over their differences?
-
Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.
Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?
True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.
ippy
Here's one for you, Ippy: "If a scientist says something is possible, he is probably right; if a scientist says something is impossible, he is probably wrong." Who said that?
Since what you say about scientists has always been and still is the same, can't see that it matters who else has said it.
ippy
-
"Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?"
Thrud, are you familiar with 'The Chronological Gospels' The Life and Seventy Week Ministry of the Messiah by Michael Rood? Well worth a look.
-
So, religious people are really no different to other people: many groups have attempted to force people to comply with their (often political) edicts.
Yes, there have been any number of people who have tried to impose particular modes of thought or life on people purely for ideology, and that's inherently dangerous. Evidence-based decisions are infinitely superior.
For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.
Do they? If you really think this, then I pity any children you are/have been responsible for.
I thank you for your concern, though I suspect it's needless - I'll note that completely fails to in any way suggest why I should treat claims of an Abrahamic god as any more or less likely than leprechauns or unicorns or pixies.
You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.
Which is largely why I dismiss your position.
Except that my position is that you've yet to make a position - you've suggested there's a 'correct' order to the works of the New Testament, without suggesting what it is and why it is (by implication at least) different to the standard order.
O.
-
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
We have masses of evidence of people lying and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
-
I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware.
They watched him carefully enough, so I'm sure that they would have been able to produce something. After all, wasn't it the carefully choreographed misquoting of his comments about the temple that was used to convict him of blasphemy?
-
We have masses of evidence of people lying and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Actually, we do have plenty of evidence of the laws of nature being suspended, jeremy. One only has to look at the medical world and its amazing record of spontaneous healings (the euphemistic phrase used to refer to healing events that run competely against the received wisdom of what is natural and what isn't).
-
One only has to look at the medical world and its amazing record of spontaneous healings (the euphemistic phrase used to refer to healing events that run competely against the received wisdom of what is natural and what isn't).
What? Sick people getting better is a miracle?
-
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
We have masses of evidence of people lying
So what? I've never claimed people don't lie. and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
-
Has anyone yet come up with the answer to the question that several folk posed early on on the thread - what is the correct order?
-
Hope
How long is a piece of string??
And, YES, it IS that ridiculous a question.
Nick
-
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
We have masses of evidence of people lying
So what? I've never claimed people don't lie. and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?
-
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
We have masses of evidence of people lying
So what? I've never claimed people don't lie. and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?
How can you even dare think it possible that Jesus wasn't resurrected! Wasn't it proved that two women found an empty tomb? Wasn't it prove that 500 people saw and heard him speaking days after he was killed?
Oh no, you're right, it's just a story in that Big Book of Fables. Sorry!
-
How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?
The 'more likely answers' include answers that that could easily have been shown to be true at the time - yet weren't. How do you intend to show that at least one of them was true? After all, people have been trying to produce evidence to this effect for nigh on 2000 years.
-
Oh no, you're right, it's just a story in that Big Book of Fables. Sorry!
Oddly enough, jj, archeology indicates that a lot of those so-called 'Fables' aren't fables. Perhaps you regard archeology as a false science.
-
and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
A story in a book is not evidence.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken.
You can split hairs if you want. Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.
Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".
-
Hope
How long is a piece of string??
And, YES, it IS that ridiculous a question.
Nick
I agree with you, Nick, but the thread title indicates that, in the thread author's mind, there is a 'correct order' - but they have failed to produce that 'order'. Some of us have suggested possible orders for the author to agree with or not, ....
-
Has anyone yet come up with the answer to the question that several folk posed early on on the thread - what is the correct order?
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
-
A story in a book is not evidence.
Are you suggesting that the latest 'drugs in athletics' story, so far only available to us in reported written form, isn't evidence because it is only a story in a 'book'?
You can split hairs if you want. Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.
Even though, as I've previously pointed out, the laws of nature appear to be broken, if not suspended, on plenty of occasions?
And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".
But what about when one does find evidence - in written form, for instance?
-
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.
-
For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
SO what you're saying is....
If NON Christians understand it they'll become Christian ????
Do you fully understand Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? No should be your answer, eh?
what do they offer in comparison to Christianity?
I am asking because you can only ask the above question if you fully understand Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
And if you do...which don't then you cannot know if you would become any of those things...
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
The Jews learned the Torah off by heart. The NT was not around when both Jew and Gentile received the truth about Christ and believed.
The Gentiles did not know Gods word off by heart. But when they heard the truth spoken they believed.
No converts to the others by simply believing on the name of Jesus. They do not have a saviour do they or a covenant with the one true God.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Christianity is NOT about knowing the OT and the NT. It is about knowing God and Jesus Christ
That is why when we read your posts and the posts of others we know you do not understand or comprehend the truth of the NT nor can you therefore compare to the OT.
Nor can you compare to other beliefs or judge them by comparison.
-
And you know the deity do you Sass? ;D ;D ;D
-
A story in a book is not evidence.
Are you suggesting that the latest 'drugs in athletics' story, so far only available to us in reported written form, isn't evidence because it is only a story in a 'book'?
If the "book" was the Daily Mail, and it wasn't being reported anywhere else, then yes.
Even though, as I've previously pointed out, the laws of nature appear to be broken, if not suspended, on plenty of occasions?
You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier. As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.
But what about when one does find evidence - in written form, for instance?
But what is it evidence of? a miraculous event or somebody good at spinning a yarn?
-
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.
I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.
-
It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
We have masses of evidence of people lying
So what? I've never claimed people don't lie. and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
How do you know Jesus was resurected?
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.How have you ruled out the more likely answers?
Which "more likely answers"? How do you know they are "more likely"?
-
and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.
Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
A story in a book is not evidence.
More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.
If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.
Or genuinely mistaken.
You can split hairs if you want.
So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives. Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.
Why?
Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).
And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".
And when we do find some, we can say, "It isn't evidence because that sort of thing doesn't happen"?
-
There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.
There are things they can prevent you doing, and until recently there were a lot more, and if some of them (not all) had there way then there would be attempts to force people to comply with their religious edicts.
HOW? How can Christianity force anyone to comply? It is impossible.
You are surely not using an argument which does not apply to Christians as an argument against Christianity, are you?
How useless does that become and how lacking does it make your understanding of Christianity and sincerity in replying to BA?
And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.
For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.
If you haven't tried Christianity how can you make such a foolish assertion? For you to assert they are the same shows ignorance and is even more foolish. It is folly in the worse case possible.
You see Christians make choice and speaks from an informed stance and knowledge. It would be foolish for anyone to diss that without having experienced what they have or understanding what they have read.
If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.
Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate. Walk away from the Lords, and from schooling.
Christians DO NOT stop the right to die, they do not stop gay marriage and they do not advocate walking away from the Lords (is that the 'house of Lords' or did you mean Laws? They have never advocated anyone walk away from schooling.... How does any of those things reflect in the topic started by an atheist? Let me remind you...
Re: Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
It would be best if you did not try to derail or throw red herrings into the topic being discussed...
Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.
Make a difference to anyone else? Who knows, I do this for practice and personal amusement.
Explains the red herring and lack of understanding regarding other faiths, Christianity and what the topic thread is really about...
And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.
You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.
O.
Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.
-
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.
I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.
Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb
But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias. Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.
-
More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.
But you do not know the provenance of these accounts. You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.
So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.
They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.
Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.
Why?
I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day. I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people. Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.
-
Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?
That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ????
Christianity is not about changing the views of other faiths.
Nor does the other faiths outside the Abrahamic faith have anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity does not judge the world. The world was already judged when Christ died. No other way back to God but the ways of the covenants.
You need to understand that Christianity is about personal change and that every person has to have their own relationship with God and Christ. Christianity is concerned with those who know the LORD God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Love not the world or anything in it...
1 John 2:15-17King James Version (KJV)
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
We cannot change the world or one iota of what a person believes.
The individual can only be changed by a personal experience of God.
To take a persons beliefs away would only substitute it for something else if not in a relationship with God and Christ. It would be futile to try and stop other religions existing... But it is clear that people who once believed those things have changed when they came to believe the truth about Christ and Gods love to save them.
Understanding is helpful. Christians do not try to remove beliefs... They know that only the person who finds life in Christ can do that for themselves.
-
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.
I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.
Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.
My reply started with the words "good question". This was in reference to Hope's post which asked the same question as I did except I expanded it it a little. I wasn't asking Hope.
-
I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ????
NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!
What does this mean????
Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way.
There speaks the voice of IGNORANCE....you cannot answer anything without showing two things... Your complete incompetence and lack of knowledge when it comes to the contents of the NT or even why your answer has nothing to do with what was asked...
Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him.
Ignorance and total lack of understanding... We have nieces sent home to die who lived. Both anointed both had terminal heart disease and one has now been completely cleared of that heart disease it has miraculously disappeared. So don't presume to know what evidence we as individuals have. The heart condition DOES NOT get better. And the scans which were taped prove that they did have the disease. We know that Jesus healed we know that today the dead are being raised and terminal illness healed. Should you answer posts you cannot actually understand or keep on track with?
The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.
Seems that you have an inability to really comprehend anything with an open mind.
In his SPOUTING OFF it got you right, didn't he...
Matthew 13:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Why NOT make this your moniker... Because he was right about you when he spoke these words wasn't he?
::)
-
You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier. As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.
Oddly enough, jeremy, people on this very forum refer to the self-same events, but just give them a different name - 'spontaneous healings' as opposed to 'miracles'. Even they acknowledge that there is no rational reason for the healing.
But what is it evidence of? a miraculous event or somebody good at spinning a yarn?
And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again. The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case; the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations.
The suspension of laws is in no way an impossible event if they are established by an external force.
-
The heart condition DOES NOT get better.
Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.
-
The heart condition DOES NOT get better.
Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.
And only if the recommendations relate to non-genetic conditions!! ;) I was rcently diagnosed as having high levels of lipoprotein{a} (sorry about the use of 'wrong' brackets - use of normal ones results in the system thinking I'm trying to start some new formatting). This is a genetic issue that I have no control over, though scentists are investigating means of artificially controlling the substance. I might even be invited to take part in clinical trials if they come up with something.
-
And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again. The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case; the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations.
The suspension of laws is in no way an impossible event if they are established by an external force.
If the laws themselves were established by a god then their existence is miraculous too, which renders absolutely everything to be miraculous, leaving your little pointers to specific events as miraculous meaningless because you have removed all contrast.
-
You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier. As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.
Oddly enough, jeremy, people on this very forum refer to the self-same events, but just give them a different name - 'spontaneous healings' as opposed to 'miracles'. Even they acknowledge that there is no rational reason for the healing.
Apart from the fact that the human body has a biological self repair mechanism.
And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again. The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case;
Except that the laws of nature have been tested extensively and never found to be broken. This is only a cycle because you will not accept basic fact.
the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations.
If there is a god that is prepared to break the laws of nature, you and I are both wasting our time. The laws of probability go straight out of the window. Why are you even arguing here? You should just say you have faith that your god can do anything. That is what your argument is coming down to anyway. Same for Alan.
-
The heart condition DOES NOT get better.
Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.
And only if the recommendations relate to non-genetic conditions!! ;) I was rcently diagnosed as having high levels of lipoprotein{a} (sorry about the use of 'wrong' brackets - use of normal ones results in the system thinking I'm trying to start some new formatting). This is a genetic issue that I have no control over, though scentists are investigating means of artificially controlling the substance. I might even be invited to take part in clinical trials if they come up with something.
I'm sorry to hear that, Hope, and hope that all the results are successful and satisfactory for you.
However, I repeat that nearly everything is genetic in origin, although not always directly. Heart disease is mostly caused by faulty diet and lack of exercise, but it must always be remembered that the next guy may well live the same way but doesn't develop the disease because he is not genetically susceptible to the causes.
-
HOW? How can Christianity force anyone to comply? It is impossible.
Christianity is simply that which Christians apply in its name, so yes 'Christianity' can compel people to do or not do certain things, by enshrining their religious tenets in law.
If you haven't tried Christianity how can you make such a foolish assertion? For you to assert they are the same shows ignorance and is even more foolish. It is folly in the worse case possible.
This still doesn't explain what reason there is to assume there is a difference. You believe, that's your prerogative. I have testimony from any number of people believing any number of allegations from global alien empires in pre-human history, through lizard-doppelgangers in the Royal Family on to the efficacy of extremely diluted water, and no reason to believe that any of them have any more justification than any other. The number of people that believe unevidenced assertions is not a reliable indicator of the reliability of the assertion.
Billions of people believe Muhammed has superseded Judaism and that Christianity is fundamentally misguided, but their sincerity is, no doubt, insufficient to convince you. Why should your equally sincere but equally unsupported belief convince me?
You see Christians make choice and speaks from an informed stance and knowledge. It would be foolish for anyone to diss that without having experienced what they have or understanding what they have read.
Some Christians, perhaps, but not all. And whilst you can be informed about the Bible, it is a poor source of information itself.
Christians DO NOT stop the right to die, they do not stop gay marriage and they do not advocate walking away from the Lords (is that the 'house of Lords' or did you mean Laws? They have never advocated anyone walk away from schooling....
Really? So the Lords Spiritual, amongst others, didn't vote against the Assisted Dying bill? The Lords Spiritual didn't speak out against, and vote against, the progress of the amendments to marriage when they went through? They don't advocate people walk away from schooling, but they encourage the segregation and tribalism of religious schools.
Let me remind you...
Re: Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
It would be best if you did not try to derail or throw red herrings into the topic being discussed...
Do you have any idea if there's an alleged 'correct' order, because it all seems to have gone quiet on that front.
Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.
I have asked, repeatedly, for information to expand upon the original question. I have asked, repeatedly, for someone to explain why I should treat claims of gods differently to claims of leprechauns, and as yet no-one has tried.
Keep with the red herring assertions if you'd like, but I'd prefer an answer to the questions that might move the discussion on a little....
O.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb
But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias. Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.
How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?
-
More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.
But you do not know the provenance of these accounts. You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.
Eh? You are suggesting that all the accounts of people meeting Jesus may be traced back to Peter making something up?
So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.
They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.
And?
Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.
Why?
I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day. I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people. Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.
Who would those people be that you are describing?
I've never seen the Big Bang, but am confident it happened. Just because I don't see any Big Bangs now should not lead me to assume that there was not one way back.
-
Good question. What is the right order? Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?
You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.
I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.
Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.
My reply started with the words "good question". This was in reference to Hope's post which asked the same question as I did except I expanded it it a little. I wasn't asking Hope.
OK. I've PMed Thrud.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb
But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias. Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.
How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?
Let's look at the actual evidence:
We have, effectively two stories that claim there was an empty tomb (since the synoptic gospels are certainly not independent). Even then we can't be sure that they had independent sources because we don't know who wrote them or when or where they got their information from.
The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess. There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.
The problem with your "evidence" of the resurrection is that it comes essentially from the same stories as the empty tomb. You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.
-
More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.
But you do not know the provenance of these accounts. You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.
Eh? You are suggesting that all the accounts of people meeting Jesus may be traced back to Peter making something up?
Eh? Are you suggesting that a dead man coming alive again is a serious proposition? Eh?
So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.
They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.
And?
Eh? And nothing. There was a full stop at the end of the sentence.
I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day. I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people. Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.
Who would those people be that you are describing?
Eh? Anybody who has ever claimed to witness a miracle.
I've never seen the Big Bang, but am confident it happened. Just because I don't see any Big Bangs now should not lead me to assume that there was not one way back.
Eh? Nobody is claiming the Big Bang is a miracle.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb
But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias. Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.
How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?
Let's look at the actual evidence:
We have, effectively two stories that claim there was an empty tomb (since the synoptic gospels are certainly not independent). Even then we can't be sure that they had independent sources because we don't know who wrote them or when or where they got their information from.
This is incorrect. The accounts of the resurrection in the four canonical gospels seem to be independent of each other. You yourself have argued that they are incompatible with each other, because they speak of different people going to the tomb at different times and speak of different people seeing Jesus at different times. I agree that much in the Synoptics is not independent, but the resurrection accounts do seem to be independent.
The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess. There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.
If it was not empty, all the authorities had to do was show Jesus' body in the tomb. So, no, not tenuous.
As for why it was empty, you need to come up with a better explanation of all the evidence, not just bits and pieces using mutually incompatible or ad hoc explanations.
The problem with your "evidence" of the resurrection is that it comes essentially from the same stories as the empty tomb. You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.
Do they? The account of James' martyrdom comes from Josephus. The account of Peter's and Paul's come from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (as recorded by Eusebius). We also have an account of Jesus' death in Tacitus.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
Of course, Alan, it's very simple. The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own. It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
Of course, Alan, it's very simple. The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own. It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.
This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
You are assuming that the 'empty tomb' element was an issue at the time of the alleged resurrection: but that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was there at all are claims and not facts. So, how to you know that this isn't just a later addition by Jesus supporters at the time the story was first written down decades later?
After all propaganda is a risk, and if you can't acknowledge this then you are indulging in special pleading that those early Christians/NT writers were immune from human artifice in support of their cause.
If there is a risk that it isn't true at all, and there is this risk, then your challenge to 'explain' these claims is spurious since your challenge involves assuming that claims are facts, and I'd say that such assumptions are unjustified.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
Of course, Alan, it's very simple. The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own. It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.
This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
-
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.
You don't need to have the brain of Einstein to see which is the most likely.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
-
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public. All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.
-
Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
-
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public. All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.
Which assumes that the authorities at the time were aware that there was a resurrection claim that needed immediate debunking - hard for them to do if the resurrection story is propaganda added decades later by Jesus fans.
Since you believe the resurrection claim how have you excluded the risk of this being later propaganda?
-
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public. All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.
Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead? I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!
-
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public. All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.
And if they thought he was the genuine article you would have thought they would have written it down...
-
Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
Unfortunately for you, your link at no point and in no way states that so-called Lazarus Syndrome entails the coming back to life of the genuinely dead.
I found this out by reading the link, which you patently didn't.
-
Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead? I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!
Actually, yes; they would have been very interested, jj. After all, it was they who had had him crucified for the very reason of blasphemy - his claiming to be God. Incidentally, how many 'other (Jewish) sects' were there at that time in history? I accept that history records that there had been a number of political 'Messiahs' who had been dealt with over the preceding 50-odd years, but history makes no mention of any resultant 'sects'. There were the Zealots, but it tended to be from within their ranks that these 'Messiahs' emerged. Jesus clearly wasn't one of them.
-
Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
,
A small number of cases involving recovery following attempts at cardiac resuscitation, with all the trauma and modern medical intervention/drugs involves and prior to actual death: so not the the same thing at all as recovery 3 days post-death from major tissue and bony injury in antiquity.
-
Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead? I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!
Actually, yes; they would have been very interested, jj. After all, it was they who had had him crucified for the very reason of blasphemy - his claiming to be God. Incidentally, how many 'other (Jewish) sects' were there at that time in history? I accept that history records that there had been a number of political 'Messiahs' who had been dealt with over the preceding 50-odd years, but history makes no mention of any resultant 'sects'. There were the Zealots, but it tended to be from within their ranks that these 'Messiahs' emerged. Jesus clearly wasn't one of them.
Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.
-
Which assumes that the authorities at the time were aware that there was a resurrection claim that needed immediate debunking - hard for them to do if the resurrection story is propaganda added decades later by Jesus fans.
Since you believe the resurrection claim how have you excluded the risk of this being later propaganda?
May I turn this round and ask you whether you have considered that, since Paul started his ministry within 5 or 6 years of Jesus' death and resurrection, and the message of Jesus' resurrection had clearly been doing the rounds for several years before that (as can be seen by the fact that he was on his way to Damascus to oppose those who taught the idea when he was converted), the 'later progaganda' argument has very slim legs to stand on?
I'm sorry to say this Gordon, but the more you and others argue for this 'later propaganda' idea, the more you reinforce the argument for the reality of the resurrection because of the increasingly shrinking timescale that your 'later' arguments allow for.
-
Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.
I quite agree, Gordon: IF ... . As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give. After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show. Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to. No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
-
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
The problem is that you are dealing with 3 very different things, Len. Remember that we already have the well-known idea of 'spontaneous healing' (that has no medical or scientific explanation) that some here have proposed as being more acceptable than the concept of miracles. We then have the issue of whether or not the criteria for declaring a person dead need to be rethought. Finally, we have the issue of whether any criteria we come up with in respect to a person being declared dead have any relevance to deity.
-
Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.
I quite agree, Gordon: IF ... . As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give. After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show. Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to. No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.
So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?
If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?
-
So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?
Well, since it would seem to be the case that the authorities didn't do what you assumed they did, I'll leave you to answer the question.
If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?
If it was in the DW tomorrow, I wouldn't believe it, but not for the reason you would. Jesus made it very clear that this was a once for all time/people event. If someone else was to claim that they had died and risen again on a 'once for all' basis, why would I believe it. If, on the other hand, the DW reported on a return to life following a medical declaration of their death, I would simply say that this could well have been another example of the Lazurus syndrome.
-
Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.
I quite agree, Gordon: IF ... . As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give. After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show. Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to. No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.
You are still assuming these claims are facts.
Tell me, how long after the event was the CLAIM that Paul preached about the resurrection 40 days after the event actually recorded in the NT documentation? How do you know the claims about what Paul is alleged to have said isn't part of later post-hoc propaganda?
-
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
The problem is that you are dealing with 3 very different things, Len. Remember that we already have the well-known idea of 'spontaneous healing' (that has no medical or scientific explanation) that some here have proposed as being more acceptable than the concept of miracles. We then have the issue of whether or not the criteria for declaring a person dead need to be rethought. Finally, we have the issue of whether any criteria we come up with in respect to a person being declared dead have any relevance to deity.
1) Spontaneous healing shows that we don't yet know everything about how the human body works.
2) The criteria for death clearly fall short of being correct, which is really because of 1.
3) I can see no reason for connecting either 1 or 2 with myth stories about gods.
-
So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?
Well, since it would seem to be the case that the authorities didn't do what you assumed they did, I'll leave you to answer the question.
If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?
If it was in the DW tomorrow, I wouldn't believe it, but not for the reason you would. Jesus made it very clear that this was a once for all time/people event. If someone else was to claim that they had died and risen again on a 'once for all' basis, why would I believe it. If, on the other hand, the DW reported on a return to life following a medical declaration of their death, I would simply say that this could well have been another example of the Lazurus syndrome.
Do I really need to answer the first point. Hope, or are you mixing me up with the Alien?
As for the second, so if I tell you I am going to fly to Jupiter on gossamer wings and it will be a once for all time event, you'll believe me? Not a chance!
Funny how you believe a 2000 year old, third hand, account that's just as barmy though.
-
You are still assuming these claims are facts.
In exactly the same way that you are assuming that they aren't.
Tell me, how long after the event was the CLAIM that Paul preached about the resurrection 40 days after the event actually recorded in the NT documentation? How do you know the claims about what Paul is alleged to have said isn't part of later post-hoc propaganda?
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event. It is clear that Galations was written to a congregation that had been in existence for some time. Whether it had been established by Paul or by someone else, perhaps earlier than Paul's entry into the process, we don't know, but clearly the Gospel had been being preached verbally for some years before Paul or nyone else wrote any of it down.
As for the 40 days, remember that all the dates surrounding the crucifixion, resurrection and what is called Pentecost by the church all fit in with important festivals in the Jewish calendar. The dates weren't simply dates plucked out of the air at random.
-
In exactly the same way that you are assuming that they aren't.
Correct, because in the absence of any supporting evidence that's the rational default position.
Remember: we're not all all-consumed by the negative proof fallacy as you are. Evidentialists want to see positive evidence for believing a given proposition or claim - the lack of evidence against isn't sufficient to take it as true no matter how many times you repeat it.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
You are assuming that the 'empty tomb' element was an issue at the time of the alleged resurrection: but that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was there at all are claims and not facts. So, how to you know that this isn't just a later addition by Jesus supporters at the time the story was first written down decades later?
After all propaganda is a risk, and if you can't acknowledge this then you are indulging in special pleading that those early Christians/NT writers were immune from human artifice in support of their cause.
If there is a risk that it isn't true at all, and there is this risk, then your challenge to 'explain' these claims is spurious since your challenge involves assuming that claims are facts, and I'd say that such assumptions are unjustified.
It wasn't "first written down decades later". Even Dan Barker dates the resurrection appearances "creed" from 1 Corinthians 15 from about 2 years after Jesus' crucifixion, though Paul is quoting it something like 18 years or so after the resurrection. I gather people like Ludemann and Ehrman date it 2-5 years after the crucifixion.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
Of course, Alan, it's very simple. The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own. It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.
This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
You have not answered my question. Why don't you explain the whole lot?
-
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.
You don't need to have the brain of Einstein to see which is the most likely.
OK, Len. Let's see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously badly dispirited people.
Hint: sound bites do not count as an explanation.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Or his half-brother, James, who previously thought Jesus was off his head? Why did James become the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem?
-
Do I really need to answer the first point. Hope, or are you mixing me up with the Alien?
Well, since what you quote comes in a reply I made to one of your posts -
Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead? I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!
I don't think I'm confusing you with anyone. So, answer please.
As for the rest of your post, its amazing just how much many people believe about events from long before Jesus' time using no more than '3rd hand accounts' often written many decades, perhaps even centuries after the events.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
You appear not to know what QED means, even assuming you know what it stands for.
-
You are still assuming these claims are facts.
In exactly the same way that you are assuming that they aren't.
Tell me, how long after the event was the CLAIM that Paul preached about the resurrection 40 days after the event actually recorded in the NT documentation? How do you know the claims about what Paul is alleged to have said isn't part of later post-hoc propaganda?
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event. It is clear that Galations was written to a congregation that had been in existence for some time. Whether it had been established by Paul or by someone else, perhaps earlier than Paul's entry into the process, we don't know, but clearly the Gospel had been being preached verbally for some years before Paul or nyone else wrote any of it down.
As for the 40 days, remember that all the dates surrounding the crucifixion, resurrection and what is called Pentecost by the church all fit in with important festivals in the Jewish calendar. The dates weren't simply dates plucked out of the air at random.
I'm not - I'm saying that a claim is exactly that: as in not being historical facts.
So, what is said in the NT about 'days' are claims that as you concede were recorded a minimum of a decade after the event, or possibly later since the precise dates aren't known.
There is still the obvious risk of propaganda in these post-hoc accounts written by Jesus supporters decade or more later, so how have you excluded the possibility that, for example, these bits about Paul may not be true (in full or in part)?
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
You appear not to know what QED means, even assuming you know what it stands for.
Yes, thanks. Quod erat demonstrandum. Do you know what it stands for and means?
-
Yes, thanks. Quod erat demonstrandum. Do you know what it stands for
Er, you've just written it out ::)
and means?
I do indeed. Which is why your use of it was/is incorrect.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Or his half-brother, James, who previously thought Jesus was off his head? Why did James become the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem?
You were talking about the authorities. I was simply making a parallel with that.
-
OK, Len. Let's see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously badly dispirited people.
Hint: sound bites do not count as an explanation.
Hint - if the empty tomb or Jesus meeting people claims aren't known to be actually true then asking others to 'explain' them is a silly and unfair challenge. You need to verify these claims first (as opposed to you believing them on a personal basis).
By the way oppressed and/or dispirited people are known to start movements but this doesn't mean that what they start is factually justified.
-
Yes, thanks. Quod erat demonstrandum. Do you know what it stands for
Er, you've just written it out ::)
and means?
I do indeed. Which is why your use of it was/is incorrect.
Indeed. Alien comes a cropper.
-
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
There are three questions here, jj - though you may not be aware that you have asked 3. Firstly, there is sufficient discepancy amongst the 3 Synoptic Gospels - for instance - to suggest that the stories weren't 'made up'. If they had been, those making them up would have made sure that they matched far better.
Secondly, research has shown that in a culture like 1st Century Palestine, oral tradition was far more important to the masses than the literary tradition that we now rely in. As such, 'stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down' was pretty unusual. "Stories being told over and over again before they were written down" would certainly have been the case, but the 'misquoting' element you seem to assume would have happened, wasn't.
Thirdly, there is the question of whether we have a 'man walking' or something else? You and others like you want to take it as read that what is is being talkked about is a normal human being. As such, as your questions and assertions simply conform to and confirm your existing bias. You are simply unable to countenance the possibility that there is a broader aspect to reality than just the physical. That is why, in the past, I have pointed out that folk like you are blinkered and see reality in fewer dimensions that it actually exists in.
As I pointed out in a previous response - to Gordon, iirc - questions and assertions that you and co. make on this matter actually reinforce this broader understanding of reality.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Or his half-brother, James, who previously thought Jesus was off his head? Why did James become the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem?
You were talking about the authorities. I was simply making a parallel with that.
Indeed. Alien comes a cropper part 2.
What do you think the authorities would have thought if they had indeed seen Jesus after his crucifixion? Do you think they would have fallen at his feet in worship, come up with some far-fetched scheme about him not really having died or something else?
-
OK, Len. Let's see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously badly dispirited people.
Hint: sound bites do not count as an explanation.
Hint - if the empty tomb or Jesus meeting people claims aren't known to be actually true then asking others to 'explain' them is a silly and unfair challenge. You need to verify these claims first (as opposed to you believing them on a personal basis).
By the way oppressed and/or dispirited people are known to start movements but this doesn't mean that what they start is factually justified.
You misunderstand what I have written there. I spoke of "alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups". There seems little doubt (to the impartial observer, I would suggest) that those people involved on those dozen or so occasions genuinely believed they had met and sometimes eaten with the risen Jesus. My request to you is to give a good explanation as to why they were so convinced.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
Of course, Alan, it's very simple. The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own. It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.
This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?
What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?
You have not answered my question. Why don't you explain the whole lot?
I did - lies, misquotes, too long between events and their telling ... all far more likely than that a guy who had been dead for 72 hours returned to life!
-
I'm not - I'm saying that a claim is exactly that: as in being historical facts.
So, what is said in the NT about 'days' are claims that as you concede were recorded a minimum of a decade after the event, or possibly later since the precise dates aren't known.
Unfortunately for your argument, the dates would have been known. The Jewish calandar is pretty rigid and would have been recorded at the time. As such, that kind of record is probably only hours or days after the events.
There is still the obvious risk of propaganda in these post-hoc accounts written by Jesus supporters decade or more later, so how have you excluded the possibility that, for example, these bits about Paul may not be true (in full or in part)?
Have you considered that the 'post-hoc accounts written by Jesus supporters decade or more later' (sic) repeat what Paul states in his own letters which pre-date other NT documents These weren't ideas that were conjured up out of thin air. They would have been facts gleaned from existing documentation.
I'm sorry to highlight this again, but the more and more you go about the 'propaganda' idea, the thinner and thinner your argument gets because you use more and more ideas that simply aren't borne out historically.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Or his half-brother, James, who previously thought Jesus was off his head? Why did James become the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem?
You were talking about the authorities. I was simply making a parallel with that.
Indeed. Alien comes a cropper part 2.
What do you think the authorities would have thought if they had indeed seen Jesus after his crucifixion? Do you think they would have fallen at his feet in worship, come up with some far-fetched scheme about him not really having died or something else?
No idea. All I will say, as I said before to Hope, is that if they did think he was the genuine article, then I would've expected them to make a record of it. This is all ifs and buts, though.
-
OK, Len. Let's see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously badly dispirited people.
Hint: sound bites do not count as an explanation.
Hint - if the empty tomb or Jesus meeting people claims aren't known to be actually true then asking others to 'explain' them is a silly and unfair challenge. You need to verify these claims first (as opposed to you believing them on a personal basis).
By the way oppressed and/or dispirited people are known to start movements but this doesn't mean that what they start is factually justified.
You misunderstand what I have written there. I spoke of "alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups". There seems little doubt (to the impartial observer, I would suggest) that those people involved on those dozen or so occasions genuinely believed they had met and sometimes eaten with the risen Jesus. My request to you is to give a good explanation as to why they were so convinced.
What I'm saying, and you aren't getting, is that you are asking me to explain a claim by assuming that this claim is an explainable fact. However, if the claim is fictional propaganda - which is a risk - then a possible explanation is that these encounters didn't happen.
So, before asking me to explain you need to demonstrate these claims are facts and not lies.
-
This is incorrect. The accounts of the resurrection in the four canonical gospels seem to be independent of each other.
I was talking about the empty tomb part, not the resurrection part. I quite agree that the resurrection accounts are independent. Each author made up his own.
You yourself have argued that they are incompatible with each other, because they speak of different people going to the tomb at different times and speak of different people seeing Jesus at different times. I agree that much in the Synoptics is not independent, but the resurrection accounts do seem to be independent.
We have the discovery of the tomb in which the stories have some common elements but with inconsistency of detail and then we have the resurrection accounts where there are no common elements. I think it is telling that the commonality ends with Mark's gospel. The obvious explanation for that is that each of the other three writers was embellishing Mark's gospel and then made up resurrection stuff to fill in the bits after the end of it.
The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess. There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.
If it was not empty, all the authorities had to do was show Jesus' body in the tomb. So, no, not tenuous.
As for why it was empty, you need to come up with a better explanation of all the evidence, not just bits and pieces using mutually incompatible or ad hoc explanations.
Frankly I don't believe the empty tomb ever existed, but here is an explanation: Joseph of Arimathea moved the body on Saturday night to the common grave where it belonged and he didn't tell any of Jesus' followers what he had done.
The account of James' martyrdom comes from Josephus.
Really? Josephus was an eye witness, was he?
The account of Peter's and Paul's come from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (as recorded by Eusebius).
So not even second hand. Dionysius is firmly a second century figure. You can't possibly be claiming he saw Peter and Paul executed.
We also have an account of Jesus' death in Tacitus.
Well Tacitus says Jesus was executed. That's about it. He doesn't say the body went missing from the tomb. He doesn't say there were accounts of Jesus being spotted alive again.
I honestly don't know why you think Tacitus helps your case. If anything, by giving Nero's motive as "needing a scapegoat for the Great Fire" he destroys the idea that Peter and Paul died for their faith; they died for Nero's political expediency.
-
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
How do you disprove a story that isn't going to surface for another twenty years?
-
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Where in Paul's letters is his account of the crucifixion? Where in his letters is his account of the resurrection? Yes he says Christ was executed. Yes he says various people saw Christ after his death, but there is no account of the empty tomb. There is no account of Jesus eating and drinking with people after his death. There is no account of Jesus travelling to Emmaus, Galilee or ascending into heaven.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
I really don't know why you keep trying to push this line, as it just kills your argument - the old "If God, why not?" pish. It's like trying to play top trumps when everybody holds the exact same omnipotence card.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
I really don't know why you keep trying to push this line, as it just kills your argument - the old "If God, why not?" pish. It's like trying to play top trumps when everybody holds the exact same omnipotence card.
Exactly, Andy. If you invent out of thin air a magic entity who can do magic things, then by definition it can do anything you define it to be able to do - the Tolkiens and the Rowlings of the world earned fame and in the latter case especially great fortune by doing just that. It's embarrassingly tautological - magic entity can do magic may be impeccable logically but it says nothing.
These were writers of fiction, though; those who try to palm us off with these ludicrous fish stories allege that their magic character is real (somehow, in some vague wavy-handy, never quite fully specified or defined way) and actually exists (ditto), so we're entitled to demand the same standards of evidence as we normally employ.
-
Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this. It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.
Unless there is a God and God raises that person from the dead. QED.
Such characters only exist in fable, and fables are the only "evidence" for their existence.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
You are assuming that the 'empty tomb' element was an issue at the time of the alleged resurrection: but that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was there at all are claims and not facts. So, how to you know that this isn't just a later addition by Jesus supporters at the time the story was first written down decades later?
After all propaganda is a risk, and if you can't acknowledge this then you are indulging in special pleading that those early Christians/NT writers were immune from human artifice in support of their cause.
If there is a risk that it isn't true at all, and there is this risk, then your challenge to 'explain' these claims is spurious since your challenge involves assuming that claims are facts, and I'd say that such assumptions are unjustified.
It wasn't "first written down decades later". Even Dan Barker dates the resurrection appearances "creed" from 1 Corinthians 15 from about 2 years after Jesus' crucifixion, though Paul is quoting it something like 18 years or so after the resurrection. I gather people like Ludemann and Ehrman date it 2-5 years after the crucifixion.
Even so, how do you know that the empty tomb isn't a fictional element added in later?
After all is someone wanted to create a fictional narrative to 'up the ante' with regard to Jesus being divine after he was killed and inconveniently, for them, remained dead, then 'but the body disappeared from the tomb and later on he had a pint with Frank and Neil' is surely to sort of element that would the job nicely, and impress the gullible.
As it stands the 'empty tomb' is just a claim and not a historical fact, and you are failing to recognise this when you frequently challenge people to 'explain' it. Your challenge assumes there was an empty tomb that once contained the body of Jesus - but if this aspect of the story isn't historically true and is fiction, which is a risk, then your challenge to others is worthless.
You need to get from claims to facts (since we are talking tombs and dead people here) before explanations are demanded of others - but since we are stuck at claims, and bearing in mind what this story seeks to establish (that Jesus was divine, was dead and was resurrected), then the most likely explanation is that some or all of this story is fictional propaganda.
-
Even so, how do you know that the empty tomb isn't a fictional element added in later?
Gordon, this is a question that would appear to have been asked for centuries. What is clear is that had it been 'a fictional element added in later' the Jewish authorities would have wanted to make sure that the story was quashed very early in its existence. After all, it was they who had insisted on the death sentence for Jesus, and so they would not have wanted anything that questioned their decisions to become popular.
After all is someone wanted to create a fictional narrative to 'up the ante' with regard to Jesus being divine after he was killed and inconveniently, for them, remained dead, then 'but the body disappeared from the tomb and later on he had a pint with Frank and Neil' is surely to sort of element that would the job nicely, and impress the gullible.
The problem with this is that there had been a number of 'Messiahs' over the previous 50, perhaps even 100 years, many of whom had been executed by the authorities. None of their supporters had suggested that any of them had been resurrected - and in view of the fact that they had all been political/military power-type Messiahs, it would have made more sense for this resurrection story to have ben used for them.
As it stands the 'empty tomb' is just a claim and not a historical fact, and you are failing to recognise this when you frequently challenge people to 'explain' it. Your challenge assumes there was an empty tomb that once contained the body of Jesus - but if this aspect of the story isn't historically true and is fiction, which is a risk, then your challenge to others is worthless.
OK, its a risk, but one with such low probability because of the centuries'-worth of challenges that have been directed against it with no positive outcome for the challengers. As such, it, and all your other challenges end up with remarkably low probabilities, suggesting that the given story has a higher probability of truth than any of the stories proposed by folk like yourself.
You need to get from claims to facts (since we are talking tombs and dead people here) before explanations are demanded of others - but since we are stuck at claims, and bearing in mind what this story seeks to establish (that Jesus was divine, was dead and was resurrected), then the most likely explanation is that some or all of this story is fictional propaganda.
See above for the refutation of your 'most likely explanation' claim.
-
Just because the supporters of Jesus claimed that their version of the 'messiah' had been resurrected, doesn't mean it was true, or he had anymore credence than other 'messiahs'.
-
Gordon, this is a question that would appear to have been asked for centuries. What is clear is that had it been 'a fictional element added in later' the Jewish authorities would have wanted to make sure that the story was quashed very early in its existence. After all, it was they who had insisted on the death sentence for Jesus, and so they would not have wanted anything that questioned their decisions to become popular.
The resurrection story didn't do the rounds until well after the event - the authorities at the time of the crucifixion were just, from their perspective, disposing of a troublemaker.
The problem with this is that there had been a number of 'Messiahs' over the previous 50, perhaps even 100 years, many of whom had been executed by the authorities. None of their supporters had suggested that any of them had been resurrected - and in view of the fact that they had all been political/military power-type Messiahs, it would have made more sense for this resurrection story to have ben used for them.
A resurrection story make no 'sense' at all.
OK, its a risk, but one with such low probability because of the centuries'-worth of challenges that have been directed against it with no positive outcome for the challengers. As such, it, and all your other challenges end up with remarkably low probabilities, suggesting that the given story has a higher probability of truth than any of the stories proposed by folk like yourself.
So, you are saying that in this specially selected case the probability of people lying in support of their cause/dead leader is lower than that of supernatural intervention - really? This sounds like special pleading to me, so perhaps you'd show us your workings out in terms of how you have determined these probabilities.
-
...You have not answered my question. Why don't you explain the whole lot?
I did - lies, misquotes, too long between events and their telling ... all far more likely than that a guy who had been dead for 72 hours returned to life!
No, you have not. You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
Edited to include link to jjohnjil's original post.
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?
Or his half-brother, James, who previously thought Jesus was off his head? Why did James become the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem?
You were talking about the authorities. I was simply making a parallel with that.
Indeed. Alien comes a cropper part 2.
What do you think the authorities would have thought if they had indeed seen Jesus after his crucifixion? Do you think they would have fallen at his feet in worship, come up with some far-fetched scheme about him not really having died or something else?
No idea. All I will say, as I said before to Hope, is that if they did think he was the genuine article, then I would've expected them to make a record of it. This is all ifs and buts, though.
So which records from the Jewish authorities would it have been recorded in? Presumably you are speaking of records we have now, but they are missing any reference to Jesus appearing to people after his crucifixion.
-
OK, Len. Let's see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously badly dispirited people.
Hint: sound bites do not count as an explanation.
Hint - if the empty tomb or Jesus meeting people claims aren't known to be actually true then asking others to 'explain' them is a silly and unfair challenge. You need to verify these claims first (as opposed to you believing them on a personal basis).
By the way oppressed and/or dispirited people are known to start movements but this doesn't mean that what they start is factually justified.
You misunderstand what I have written there. I spoke of "alleged meetings of Jesus with individuals and groups". There seems little doubt (to the impartial observer, I would suggest) that those people involved on those dozen or so occasions genuinely believed they had met and sometimes eaten with the risen Jesus. My request to you is to give a good explanation as to why they were so convinced.
What I'm saying, and you aren't getting, is that you are asking me to explain a claim by assuming that this claim is an explainable fact. However, if the claim is fictional propaganda - which is a risk - then a possible explanation is that these encounters didn't happen.
So, before asking me to explain you need to demonstrate these claims are facts and not lies.
So if it is "fictional propaganda", where would it have come from? Who might have produced it? When might they have produced it? Why might they have produced it? How did they manage to convince the authors of the four canonical gospels and people like Paul that it was all true?
Come on, Gordon, you are being too vague.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
-
Gordon, this is a question that would appear to have been asked for centuries. What is clear is that had it been 'a fictional element added in later' the Jewish authorities would have wanted to make sure that the story was quashed very early in its existence. After all, it was they who had insisted on the death sentence for Jesus, and so they would not have wanted anything that questioned their decisions to become popular.
The resurrection story didn't do the rounds until well after the event - the authorities at the time of the crucifixion were just, from their perspective, disposing of a troublemaker.
The problem with this is that there had been a number of 'Messiahs' over the previous 50, perhaps even 100 years, many of whom had been executed by the authorities. None of their supporters had suggested that any of them had been resurrected - and in view of the fact that they had all been political/military power-type Messiahs, it would have made more sense for this resurrection story to have ben used for them.
A resurrection story make no 'sense' at all.
OK, its a risk, but one with such low probability because of the centuries'-worth of challenges that have been directed against it with no positive outcome for the challengers. As such, it, and all your other challenges end up with remarkably low probabilities, suggesting that the given story has a higher probability of truth than any of the stories proposed by folk like yourself.
So, you are saying that in this specially selected case the probability of people lying in support of their cause/dead leader is lower than that of supernatural intervention - really? This sounds like special pleading to me, so perhaps you'd show us your workings out in terms of how you have determined these probabilities.
If Jesus really did resurrect, why did he very conveniently pop back upstairs, instead of sticking around down here so no one could doubt it?
-
So if it is "fictional propaganda", where would it have come from? Who might have produced it? When might they have produced it? Why might they have produced it? How did they manage to convince the authors of the four canonical gospels and people like Paul that it was all true?
Come on, Gordon, you are being too vague.
Easy peasy - propaganda comes from people with an agenda, Alan, in support of a cause, other people or even themselves and their personal interests. In addition, in that place, culture and time a religious narrative laced with miracles would go down rather well.
So, in more recent times when an American president assured us he 'did not have sex with that woman', or the UK Chancellor reassures us that the latest Budget is designed to 'benefit hard-working people' (or some similarly patronising expression), do we; a) believe them without question, or b) do we consider whether there might be another agendas at play or that perhaps mistake, lies or exaggeration may be involved.
You seem unable to countenance that early Christians were perhaps just as fallible as, say, Bill Clinton.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened.
This really is laughable. Your "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again. Do you understand what the word means?
-
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
-
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life? Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.
-
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?
Wrong, we are talking about a plausible explanation for the existence of the stories in the New Testament and the alleged martyrdoms referenced in the NT and apparently elsewhere.
-
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?
I provided an answer to this not too many hours ago. Obviously you didn't see it, despite its being only on the previous page. For your benefit I'll repeat the salient part:
If you invent out of thin air a magic entity who can do magic things, then by definition it can do anything you define it to be able to do - the Tolkiens and the Rowlings of the world earned fame and in the latter case especially great fortune by doing just that. It's embarrassingly tautological - magic entity can do magic may be impeccable logically but it says nothing.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10621.msg542993#msg542993
Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.
It's not an explanation, it's a conclusion. If you see no reason to think that any such thing as a god exists - which is the definition of atheism - then there are no gods to go around reanimating corpses.
This is not a difficult point to follow. Usually.
-
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life? Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.
Because if he was "God" in human form, then he had the ability to feel none of the pain and suffering a human would have felt. All he had to do was put on a good performance.
Yes, that is much more plausible.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened.
This really is laughable. Your "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again. Do you understand what the word means?
Since when was Alien's " "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again"? You seem to miss the statement that Alien, Jim, I and many others have made - that Jesus was God in human form. As I said in a previous post, God created the laws of nature that you so like to build your assertions on, suggesting that he can suspend them as well.
-
Since when was Alien's " "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again"? You seem to miss the statement that Alien, Jim, I and many others have made - that Jesus was God in human form.
Bald assertion without a scrap of evidence to support it, then.
As I said in a previous post, God created the laws of nature that you so like to build your assertions on
... which is in itself yet another flat assertion without evidence.
-
This is not a difficult point to follow. Usually.
It is when your ability to reason is handicapped by humbug.
-
This is not a difficult point to follow. Usually.
It is when your ability to reason is handicapped by humbug.
Yeah :(
-
Since when was Alien's " "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again"?
No, you are misunderstanding. Alan's explanation is not plausible.
You seem to miss the statement that Alien, Jim, I and many others have made - that Jesus was God in human form.
Make that statement as much as you like. I'll treat it with the resect it deserves (which is none at all) until you provide some evidence that Jesus was God in human form. Alan claims the resurrection is evidence, but, since the resurrection is what is in dispute here, that would be a circular argument i.e. invalid.
As I said in a previous post, God created the laws of nature that you so like to build your assertions on, suggesting that he can suspend them as well.
Again, I don't have to accept that until some evidence is provided that God created the laws of nature.
-
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?
I provided an answer to this not too many hours ago. Obviously you didn't see it, despite its being only on the previous page. For your benefit I'll repeat the salient part:
No I didn't see iot - I've been out all morning and - despite skim-reading the last couple of pages, I didn't see this attempt at an answer. I wouldn't say that it is a particularly clever answer, even though it makes use of lots of clever language.
It's not an explanation, it's a conclusion. If you see no reason to think that any such thing as a god exists - which is the definition of atheism - then there are no gods to go around reanimating corpses.
This is not a difficult point to follow. Usually.
Its not a difficult point to follow; just a point that is open to debate, and therefore an assertion, as opposed to a definitive conclusion.
-
No, you are misunderstanding. Alan's explanation is not plausible.
No less than all the various explanations that you and your crew seek to give.
-
No I didn't see iot - I've been out all morning and - despite skim-reading the last couple of pages, I didn't see this attempt at an answer. I wouldn't say that it is a particularly clever answer, even though it makes use of lots of clever language.
No, not particularly clever language: just the right words to convey the information and concepts I intended to convey. Which it did, as did JeremyP's most recent reply which said essentially the same thing in different terms.
-
No, you are misunderstanding. Alan's explanation is not plausible.
No less than all the various explanations that you and your crew seek to give.
Then Jeremy's suspicion that you don't understand the meaning of the word plausible is confirmed as correct after all.
-
No, you are misunderstanding. Alan's explanation is not plausible.
No less than all the various explanations that you and your crew seek to give.
I claim that the Empty Tomb story is fiction. How is that as implausible as a dead man coming alive?
Seriously Hope, if we need a demonstration of the dangers of religion, you and Alan are providing it right here. Your biases are preventing you from comprehending simple obvious statements of fact. Dead men don't come alive but people do write fiction.
-
Dead men don't come alive but people do write fiction.
At risk of stating the obvious allow me to expand upon that:
Dead men don't come alive but people can be deliberately deceptive.
Dead men don't come alive but people can be genuinely and sincerely mistaken.
Dead men don't come alive but people can and do invent stories for propagandistic purposes.
-
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life? Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
-
...You have not answered my question. Why don't you explain the whole lot?
I did - lies, misquotes, too long between events and their telling ... all far more likely than that a guy who had been dead for 72 hours returned to life!
No, you have not. You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
[/quote]
Trying to specify a correct number of hours for the period of Jesus' death is singularly inappropriate when the whole crucifixion-to-ascension narrative is so replete with contradictions over time-periods. Luke himself seems confused over the days that Jesus spent on earth after he was 'resurrected'.
Reducing everything to the basic details of the earliest two accounts - St Paul and Mark - you haven't much to go on. St Paul (in Phillippians) simply implies that Jesus was 'taken up into God' and that afterwards some vision came to him. Mark says very little (in the shortened genuine version of his gospel) apart from the disciples being informed "He is not here, he is risen and is going before you into Galilee".
Further details, by other evangelists, I suggest owe more than a little to romantic imagination.
No doubt the disciples were inspired to believe something about Christ's presence in their lives. Belief is a great force for good or evil - there is no need for any verifiable reality behind the belief itself for people to be inspired to do extraordinary things. And sometimes one heartily wishes they were not so inspired.
-
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
And your explanation that disproves the argument would be?
-
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
And your explanation that disproves the argument would be?
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
(D) There isn't anything in your post that actually requires an explanation
(E) Your post isn't an argument - - see (B) also it is merely assertion, not an argument
-
No, you are misunderstanding. Alan's explanation is not plausible.
No less than all the various explanations that you and your crew seek to give.
I claim that the Empty Tomb story is fiction. How is that as implausible as a dead man coming alive?
... the very fact that it is merely a claim, as you say. You have no evidence that your claim is the truth.
Seriously Hope, if we need a demonstration of the dangers of religion, you and Alan are providing it right here. Your biases are preventing you from comprehending simple obvious statements of fact. Dead men don't come alive but people do write fiction.
I'm afraid that your 'bias' argument is somewhat double-edged. The famous claim that miracles don't exist but 'spontaneous healings' do, sort of cooks that goose.
-
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
(D) There isn't anything in your post that actually requires an explanation
(E) Your post isn't an argument - - see (B) also it is merely assertion, not an argument
Sadly, NS, Andy made the assertion. He needs to provide the evidence to back it up.
-
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
(D) There isn't anything in your post that actually requires an explanation
(E) Your post isn't an argument - - see (B) also it is merely assertion, not an argument
Sadly, NS, Andy made the assertion. He needs to provide the evidence to back it up.
That's a non sequitur both to your post and mine.
-
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
(D) There isn't anything in your post that actually requires an explanation
(E) Your post isn't an argument - - see (B) also it is merely assertion, not an argument
Sadly, NS, Andy made the assertion. He needs to provide the evidence to back it up.
What's the assertion I've supposed to have made?
-
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
And your explanation that disproves the argument would be?
Oh I see now, the point went sailing over your head.
-
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
And your explanation that disproves the argument would be?
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
(D) There isn't anything in your post that actually requires an explanation
(E) Your post isn't an argument - - see (B) also it is merely assertion, not an argument
That's a huge amount of excellence packed into a few sentences :)
-
...You have not answered my question. Why don't you explain the whole lot?
I did - lies, misquotes, too long between events and their telling ... all far more likely than that a guy who had been dead for 72 hours returned to life!
No, you have not. You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
[/quote]
Alan
I do not have to come up with a plausible scenario for something that there is not a shred of evidence that it ever took place!
As for why they would lie ... you should get out more, people lie all the time, there is even a career in it, called politics! If there is an agenda to follow, lies will follow as night follows day, Alan, I thought anyone over the age of ten would know that!
You argue about silly little details like how long he was supposed to have been dead for before coming alive again - I don't care if it was 48 hours or 48 years, even with all today's expertise, anything over about 25 minutes would mean he had snuffed it for good! And you quibble about it being 48 and not 72 hours!
You're unbelievable!
-
I do not have to come up with a plausible scenario for something that there is not a shred of evidence that it ever took place!
Sorry to disappoint you jj but, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a considerable body of documentation providing evidence for the events having taken place. You may choose to dismiss this, but to say that 'there is not a shred of evidence' is a lie.
As for why they would lie ... you should get out more, people lie all the time, there is even a career in it, called politics! If there is an agenda to follow, lies will follow as night follows day, Alan, I thought anyone over the age of ten would know that!
And what would the agenda have been?
... even with all today's expertise, anything over about 25 minutes would mean he had snuffed it for good! And you quibble about it being 48 and not 72 hours!
... and you manage to dismiss medically acknowledged events in this sweeping misgeneralisation. If anyone has an agenda that will lead people to lie, it is people like you.
You're unbelievable!
Thakfully, you and your ilk aren't. Such nay-saying has been going on for some 2000 years, so your's is no better than any of the other unsuccessful attemptees.
-
Oh I see now, the point went sailing over your head.
No, it didn't sail over my head, Andy. It has been made so often over the centuries that, if anything, it rolled under my feet.
-
Oh I see now, the point went sailing over your head.
No, it didn't sail over my head, Andy. It has been made so often over the centuries that, if anything, it rolled under my feet.
So what was it then? Also still waiting to hear what assertion I've made...
-
I claim that the Empty Tomb story is fiction. How is that as implausible as a dead man coming alive?
... the very fact that it is merely a claim
The idea that Jesus came alive again is merely a claim. My claim is more plausible than your claim.
I'm afraid that your 'bias' argument is somewhat double-edged. The famous claim that miracles don't exist but 'spontaneous healings' do, sort of cooks that goose.
I don't claim that spontaneous healing does occur. That's your unsupported claim.
-
...as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a considerable body of documentation providing evidence for the events having taken place. You may choose to dismiss this, but to say that 'there is not a shred of evidence' is a lie.
You can point it out all you like - but you are wrong.
You don't have 'evidence' in any meaningful sense of the term: what you do have are some ancient anecdotes involving fantastical and impossible claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, where the details of who/when/where these were written down are imprecise, and where the authors are likely to have biased and/or gullible.
Anecdotes about prophecies, miracles and the actions of gods may well have had currency in the middle-eastern culture of antiquity - but today, 2,000 odd years later, these anecdotes are exposed as being the curious legacy of more superstitious times and shouldn't be taken seriously.
-
...as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a considerable body of documentation providing evidence for the events having taken place. You may choose to dismiss this, but to say that 'there is not a shred of evidence' is a lie.
You can point it out all you like - but you are wrong.
You don't have 'evidence' in any meaningful sense of the term: what you do have are some ancient anecdotes involving fantastical and impossible claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, where the details of who/when/where these were written down are imprecise, and where the authors are likely to have biased and/or gullible.
Anecdotes about prophecies, miracles and the actions of gods may well have had currency in the middle-eastern culture of antiquity - but today, 2,000 odd years later, these anecdotes are exposed as being the curious legacy of more superstitious times and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Quite! But the carrot and stick can overcome the ability to reason in the more credulous individuals.
-
...as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a considerable body of documentation providing evidence for the events having taken place. You may choose to dismiss this, but to say that 'there is not a shred of evidence' is a lie.
You can point it out all you like - but you are wrong.
You don't have 'evidence' in any meaningful sense of the term: what you do have are some ancient anecdotes involving fantastical and impossible claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, where the details of who/when/where these were written down are imprecise, and where the authors are likely to have biased and/or gullible.
Anecdotes about prophecies, miracles and the actions of gods may well have had currency in the middle-eastern culture of antiquity - but today, 2,000 odd years later, these anecdotes are exposed as being the curious legacy of more superstitious times and shouldn't be taken seriously.
And, of course, as pointed out many many times, evidence in the historical methodology is naturalistic, therefore even claiming this to be evidence, is incorrect.
-
You can point it out all you like - but you are wrong.
You don't have 'evidence' in any meaningful sense of the term: what you do have are some ancient anecdotes involving fantastical and impossible claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, where the details of who/when/where these were written down are imprecise, and where the authors are likely to have biased and/or gullible.
Anecdotes about prophecies, miracles and the actions of gods may well have had currency in the middle-eastern culture of antiquity - but today, 2,000 odd years later, these anecdotes are exposed as being the curious legacy of more superstitious times and shouldn't be taken seriously.
And, of course, as pointed out many many times, evidence in the historical methodology is naturalistic, therefore even claiming this to be evidence, is incorrect.
Of course the two of you are going to disagree because your pre-existing ideas don't permit you to allow the consideration that naturalistic evidence isn't the sole form of evidence in this aspect of life.
I'm not sure how many times we've done this debate over the last 6 months, let alone the life of this forum. It is partly why I have often stated that we are actually talking about live from two radically different perspectives neither of which are compatible in terms of debate.
-
Dead men don't come alive but people do write fiction.
At risk of stating the obvious allow me to expand upon that:
Dead men don't come alive but people can be deliberately deceptive.
Dead men don't come alive but people can be genuinely and sincerely mistaken.
Dead men don't come alive but people can and do invent stories for propagandistic purposes.
Agreed. When something isn't credible like resurrection from the dead, then it didn't happen!
-
We may have done the debate many times but you are still failing to grasp the point. History is methodologically naturalistic, you are being asked for a method that covers the supernatural. You have been asked for it many many many times. You have not provided it, therefore your talk of evidence is spurious.
-
And, of course, as pointed out many many times, evidence in the historical methodology is naturalistic, therefore even claiming this to be evidence, is incorrect.
Yep - this has indeed been pointed out regularly, but tends to be ignored.
This thread, more than others recently, seems to have highlighted just how detached from reality theism is. We hear Christians tell of the so-called 'Trinity', but I'd say that a more blindingly obvious 'Trinity' is the mix of fallacies that are regularly trotted out - my top three candidates for this Trinity would be;
1. Incredulity, where some here seem to be almost overwhelmed by incredulity to the point of being pathologically gullible.
2. Ignorance, such as the science deniers.
3. Tradition/Authority (in various permutations), such as those who regard the Bible as inerrant or who regard religious traditions, holy books and the rituals of religious observance as being sufficient confirmation the truth of religious claims.
Mind you, there are probably a few more fallacies jockeying for position, such as the relativist (its true for me) and survivor fallacies.
-
Some of the more extreme theists on this forum seem to be away with the fairies, or so besotted by their own rightness they fail so see how daft their comments really are! ::)
-
Of course the two of you are going to disagree because your pre-existing ideas don't permit you to allow the consideration that naturalistic evidence isn't the sole form of evidence in this aspect of life.
Naturalistic evidence is all we have though.
If you are claiming that there is another form of evidence, call it non-naturalistic evidence, then feel free to outline this evidence and the methodology used to identify and describe it so that it can be seen to be mutually exclusive from anything naturalistic.
I'm not sure how many times we've done this debate over the last 6 months, let alone the life of this forum. It is partly why I have often stated that we are actually talking about live from two radically different perspectives neither of which are compatible in terms of debate.
Nope - you are assuming/asserting that there is this other 'life' perspective but you haven't described this beyond your personal feeling that there is an undetermined 'something': and you can't have a meaningful debate about something that seems to be no more than woolly personal conviction on your part.
-
If you are claiming that there is another form of evidence, call it non-naturalistic evidence, then feel free to outline this evidence and the methodology used to identify and describe it so that it can be seen to be mutually exclusive from anything naturalistic.
Don't hold your breath. He's been asked this many times before and he has never succeeded in doing anything except dissemble.
Personally, I don't like this idea of labelling evidence "naturalistic". It's a tactic used to try to pretend that I will only accept certain narrowly defined kinds of evidence. In fact, I'll accept any kind of evidence whatsoever as long as I can, in principle, verify it.
-
This is incorrect. The accounts of the resurrection in the four canonical gospels seem to be independent of each other.
I was talking about the empty tomb part, not the resurrection part.
Yes, sorry, you were indeed. We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.
Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3: And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
I quite agree that the resurrection accounts are independent. Each author made up his own.
Assertion in need of some evidence.
You yourself have argued that they are incompatible with each other, because they speak of different people going to the tomb at different times and speak of different people seeing Jesus at different times. I agree that much in the Synoptics is not independent, but the resurrection accounts do seem to be independent.
We have the discovery of the tomb in which the stories have some common elements but with inconsistency of detail and then we have the resurrection accounts where there are no common elements. I think it is telling that the commonality ends with Mark's gospel. The obvious explanation for that is that each of the other three writers was embellishing Mark's gospel and then made up resurrection stuff to fill in the bits after the end of it.
So no commonality.... apart from the empty tomb, angels/men, women visiting the tomb and so on?The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess. There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.
If it was not empty, all the authorities had to do was show Jesus' body in the tomb. So, no, not tenuous.
As for why it was empty, you need to come up with a better explanation of all the evidence, not just bits and pieces using mutually incompatible or ad hoc explanations.
Frankly I don't believe the empty tomb ever existed, but here is an explanation: Joseph of Arimathea moved the body on Saturday night to the common grave where it belonged and he didn't tell any of Jesus' followers what he had done.
And why did the disciples who visited the tomb think they saw angels/men, why did individuals and groups get convinced they met and spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus? Why the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated disciples?
Your explanation needs to cover all the facts, not just bits. Surely you see that?
The account of James' martyrdom comes from Josephus.
Really? Josephus was an eye witness, was he?
I didn't claim he was. I was replying to your, "You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove."
The account of Peter's and Paul's come from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (as recorded by Eusebius).
So not even second hand. Dionysius is firmly a second century figure. You can't possibly be claiming he saw Peter and Paul executed.
Correct, I am not. Dionysius, according to Wikipedia, lived around 171 AD, so that would be about 110 years after Peter and Paul were martyred (if they were martyred). Do you have any good reason to think he was wrong, bearing in mind he was living in the same city and headed up the church there?
We also have an account of Jesus' death in Tacitus.
Well Tacitus says Jesus was executed. That's about it.
Yes, that is why I wrote, "We also have an account of Jesus' death in Tacitus". He doesn't say the body went missing from the tomb. He doesn't say there were accounts of Jesus being spotted alive again.
I didn't claim he did (my post being a bit vague here), but he does write, "(Christianity a) most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judća, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." I wonder why that happened? Why do you think it happened?
I honestly don't know why you think Tacitus helps your case. If anything, by giving Nero's motive as "needing a scapegoat for the Great Fire" he destroys the idea that Peter and Paul died for their faith; they died for Nero's political expediency.
Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
-
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
How do you disprove a story that isn't going to surface for another twenty years?
So Christianity didn't start until about 53 AD? There was no preaching of the gospel till then? There were no Christians in Jerusalem until at least 53 AD?
Really?
-
I do not have to come up with a plausible scenario for something that there is not a shred of evidence that it ever took place!
Sorry to disappoint you jj but, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a considerable body of documentation providing evidence for the events having taken place. You may choose to dismiss this, but to say that 'there is not a shred of evidence' is a lie.
As for why they would lie ... you should get out more, people lie all the time, there is even a career in it, called politics! If there is an agenda to follow, lies will follow as night follows day, Alan, I thought anyone over the age of ten would know that!
And what would the agenda have been?
... even with all today's expertise, anything over about 25 minutes would mean he had snuffed it for good! And you quibble about it being 48 and not 72 hours!
... and you manage to dismiss medically acknowledged events in this sweeping misgeneralisation. If anyone has an agenda that will lead people to lie, it is people like you.
You're unbelievable!
Thakfully, you and your ilk aren't. Such nay-saying has been going on for some 2000 years, so your's is no better than any of the other unsuccessful attemptees.
Don't be sorry, Hope, you haven't disappointed me one bit! If you had agreed with me I would have been truly shocked, because you and your ilk are like blind men in a maze, desperately trying to hang on to something - anything - because of your dread of being dead for eternity!
As for the rest of your reply to my post, I think others have covered it so I won't waste my time repeating all the reasons I can dismiss your 'good' evidence.
-
We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.
Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3: And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
You are still assuming that all these claims are facts - how do you know that they aren't fiction: you may choose to accept them on a personal basis but they still remain claims and not facts. After all the whole 'empty tomb' aspect is the type of detail that someone concocting a story to maintain the reputation of the recently dead Jesus as being divine might add in for effect: a definite risk, people being what they are.
Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
You still aren't getting this, Alan. Nobody is claiming that these early Christians knew that the resurrection was a hoax - I'd expect that they were just as sincere as you are in their Christian beliefs - the point here is that their preparedness to die doesn't mean that the story they sincerely believed is necessarily true.
-
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Where in Paul's letters is his account of the crucifixion? Where in his letters is his account of the resurrection? Yes he says Christ was executed. Yes he says various people saw Christ after his death, but there is no account of the empty tomb. There is no account of Jesus eating and drinking with people after his death. There is no account of Jesus travelling to Emmaus, Galilee or ascending into heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, (Peter) and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?
-
As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.
How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
You are assuming that the 'empty tomb' element was an issue at the time of the alleged resurrection: but that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was there at all are claims and not facts. So, how to you know that this isn't just a later addition by Jesus supporters at the time the story was first written down decades later?
After all propaganda is a risk, and if you can't acknowledge this then you are indulging in special pleading that those early Christians/NT writers were immune from human artifice in support of their cause.
If there is a risk that it isn't true at all, and there is this risk, then your challenge to 'explain' these claims is spurious since your challenge involves assuming that claims are facts, and I'd say that such assumptions are unjustified.
It wasn't "first written down decades later". Even Dan Barker dates the resurrection appearances "creed" from 1 Corinthians 15 from about 2 years after Jesus' crucifixion, though Paul is quoting it something like 18 years or so after the resurrection. I gather people like Ludemann and Ehrman date it 2-5 years after the crucifixion.
Even so, how do you know that the empty tomb isn't a fictional element added in later?
After all is someone wanted to create a fictional narrative to 'up the ante' with regard to Jesus being divine after he was killed and inconveniently, for them, remained dead, then 'but the body disappeared from the tomb and later on he had a pint with Frank and Neil' is surely to sort of element that would the job nicely, and impress the gullible.
As it stands the 'empty tomb' is just a claim and not a historical fact, and you are failing to recognise this when you frequently challenge people to 'explain' it. Your challenge assumes there was an empty tomb that once contained the body of Jesus - but if this aspect of the story isn't historically true and is fiction, which is a risk, then your challenge to others is worthless.
You need to get from claims to facts (since we are talking tombs and dead people here) before explanations are demanded of others - but since we are stuck at claims, and bearing in mind what this story seeks to establish (that Jesus was divine, was dead and was resurrected), then the most likely explanation is that some or all of this story is fictional propaganda.
After several years of discussing this with you on and off I don't see you ever coming to the conclusion that Jesus did die and was raised from the dead. I'm still unsure why you bold and italicise the word "know" each time you post to me. However, I would really appreciate it if you did try to come up with something which accounts for Jesus being killed by crucifixion, the empty tomb (as recorded by the four canonical gospels and assumed by Paul since he spoke of Jesus' bodily resurrection), people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups meeting and sometimes eating with what they were convinced was the risen Jesus and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and defeated disciples. If you don't believe the tomb was empty, what is your plausible scenario for why the four gospel writers and Paul thought it was?
Will you do that for me one day? Please. You see the reason I keep asking you is that I have yet to see any non-Christian on this board give a plausible scenario. True you can explain away individual bits of the accounts on their own, but I don't remember anyone even trying to come up with a plausible overall scenario.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
Your "plausible scenario" needs to include why four gospel writers and other NT writers were convinced Jesus had been raised and that there was an empty tomb. Yes, people do lie, but why would this lot lie? If you think they were merely mistaken, how did they make that mistake? Please answer my questions.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
Your "plausible scenario" needs to include why four gospel writers and other NT writers were convinced Jesus had been raised and that there was an empty tomb. Yes, people do lie, but why would this lot lie? If you think they were merely mistaken, how did they make that mistake? Please answer my questions.
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
-
So if it is "fictional propaganda", where would it have come from? Who might have produced it? When might they have produced it? Why might they have produced it? How did they manage to convince the authors of the four canonical gospels and people like Paul that it was all true?
Come on, Gordon, you are being too vague.
Easy peasy - propaganda comes from people with an agenda, Alan, in support of a cause, other people or even themselves and their personal interests. In addition, in that place, culture and time a religious narrative laced with miracles would go down rather well.
So, in more recent times when an American president assured us he 'did not have sex with that woman', or the UK Chancellor reassures us that the latest Budget is designed to 'benefit hard-working people' (or some similarly patronising expression), do we; a) believe them without question, or b) do we consider whether there might be another agendas at play or that perhaps mistake, lies or exaggeration may be involved.
You seem unable to countenance that early Christians were perhaps just as fallible as, say, Bill Clinton.
So if this was propaganda, what was the motive of people like:
James, Jesus half-brother, whom Josephus tells us was himself later killed by the Jewish authorities.
Paul, who changed from Christian-hater to dedicated follower of Jesus who endured beatings, imprisonments, at least one shipwreck and, eventually, death.
Peter, ex-fisherman, who was also martyred.
Motive?
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened.
This really is laughable. Your "plausible" explanation is a dead man coming alive again. Do you understand what the word means?
Yes. I do note your ambiguity though. A "dead man coming alive again" would normally mean a man coming to life again naturally. Is that what you mean? If not, why put it ambiguously?
-
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
Why is my explanation implausible? Why do you have to provide a plausible explanation? Do demonstrate that you have thought it through. So far you have not demonstrated that (IMO).
-
And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible. Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?
The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life? Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.
Because if he was "God" in human form, then he had the ability to feel none of the pain and suffering a human would have felt. All he had to do was put on a good performance.
Yes, that is much more plausible.
Yes, he would have had that ability, but why do you think he would fake it?
-
Will you do that for me one day? Please. You see the reason I keep asking you is that I have yet to see any non-Christian on this board give a plausible scenario. True you can explain away individual bits of the accounts on their own, but I don't remember anyone even trying to come up with a plausible overall scenario.
A god made it all up.
-
This is not a difficult point to follow. Usually.
It is when your ability to reason is handicapped by humbug.
Ad hominem.
-
...
Trying to specify a correct number of hours for the period of Jesus' death is singularly inappropriate when the whole crucifixion-to-ascension narrative is so replete with contradictions over time-periods. Luke himself seems confused over the days that Jesus spent on earth after he was 'resurrected'.
Please do back that up with some evidence, preferably new stuff, i.e. not the same stuff as the last time this was discussed.Reducing everything to the basic details of the earliest two accounts - St Paul and Mark - you haven't much to go on. St Paul (in Phillippians) simply implies that Jesus was 'taken up into God' and that afterwards some vision came to him. Mark says very little (in the shortened genuine version of his gospel) apart from the disciples being informed "He is not here, he is risen and is going before you into Galilee".
Yes, feel free to ignore some of the evidence (no, I'm not referring to stuff after Mark 16:8).Further details, by other evangelists, I suggest owe more than a little to romantic imagination.
Suggest all you like, but personally I'd prefer some evidence.No doubt the disciples were inspired to believe something about Christ's presence in there lives.
"No doubt"? Why? How? Belief is a great force for good or evil - there is no need for any verifiable reality behind the belief itself for people to be inspired to do extraordinary things. And sometimes one heartily wishes they were not so inspired.
So how does that statement, true in itself, help us determine whether God did raise Jesus from the dead?
-
More "if God, why not?" <face palm>
And your explanation that disproves the argument would be?
That's a huge amount of fail packed into a very small sentence.
(A) You have put something forward that is unfalsifaiable by any method we have, so raising the question of 'disproving' it is pointless.
What about logic and reasoning?
(b) If God can do everything -- there is nothing God cannot do - is circular
This is incorrect for the God we Christians claim exists.
(C) An explanation isn't something that ever disproves an argument,
Not sure of your point here. Please elucidate.
-
...
Alan
I do not have to come up with a plausible scenario for something that there is not a shred of evidence that it ever took place!
This is incorrect. You may argue that there is insufficient evidence to correctly come to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead, but there is evidence. There is evidence in the various accounts in the NT documents. You may not think it sufficient, but it is evidence.
As for why they would lie ... you should get out more, people lie all the time, there is even a career in it, called politics! If there is an agenda to follow, lies will follow as night follows day, Alan, I thought anyone over the age of ten would know that!
Why would they lie? Try and think it through? Some of them suffered greatly for holding this view and some were killed because they held this view. Your attempted explanation does not seem valid to me. You, presumably, disagree, so maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
You argue about silly little details like how long he was supposed to have been dead for before coming alive again - I don't care if it was 48 hours or 48 years, even with all today's expertise, anything over about 25 minutes would mean he had snuffed it for good! And you quibble about it being 48 and not 72 hours!
You're unbelievable!
I agree that whether it was 72 hours or 48 or whatever, but my point was that you had launched into this argument without thinking it through and your miscalculation of the duration might be an indication of that. If you hadn't thought about the length of time, why should anyone think you had thought about the rest of it properly.
-
We may have done the debate many times but you are still failing to grasp the point. History is methodologically naturalistic, you are being asked for a method that covers the supernatural. You have been asked for it many many many times. You have not provided it, therefore your talk of evidence is spurious.
Who are you talking to, please? Using Quote would make it clearer.
-
And, of course, as pointed out many many times, evidence in the historical methodology is naturalistic, therefore even claiming this to be evidence, is incorrect.
Yep - this has indeed been pointed out regularly, but tends to be ignored.
This thread, more than others recently, seems to have highlighted just how detached from reality theism is. We hear Christians tell of the so-called 'Trinity', but I'd say that a more blindingly obvious 'Trinity' is the mix of fallacies that are regularly trotted out - my top three candidates for this Trinity would be;
1. Incredulity, where some here seem to be almost overwhelmed by incredulity to the point of being pathologically gullible.
2. Ignorance, such as the science deniers.
3. Tradition/Authority (in various permutations), such as those who regard the Bible as inerrant or who regard religious traditions, holy books and the rituals of religious observance as being sufficient confirmation the truth of religious claims.
Mind you, there are probably a few more fallacies jockeying for position, such as the relativist (its true for me) and survivor fallacies.
How about sticking to the subject and answering the questions I've asked, please?
-
We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.
Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3: And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
You are still assuming that all these claims are facts - how do you know that they aren't fiction: you may choose to accept them on a personal basis but they still remain claims and not facts. After all the whole 'empty tomb' aspect is the type of detail that someone concocting a story to maintain the reputation of the recently dead Jesus as being divine might add in for effect: a definite risk, people being what they are.
Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
You still aren't getting this, Alan. Nobody is claiming that these early Christians knew that the resurrection was a hoax - I'd expect that they were just as sincere as you are in their Christian beliefs - the point here is that their preparedness to die doesn't mean that the story they sincerely believed is necessarily true.
So, I ask yet again, what is the explanation for all that went on? Why do we have various writers in the NT saying these things? You say no-one is claiming they knew it was a hoax, so do you mean they were just mistaken? If so, how did they make that mistake? How did they mistakenly come to be convinced that people on a dozen or so occasions were themselves convinced, in groups and as individual, that they had met with the risen Jesus and sometimes even eaten with them? How did they mistakenly come to believe that the tomb was empty? Why didn't the authorities just point out Jesus' rotting body in the tomb? Why did Saul make such a radical change to his life and become a fervent follower of Jesus, suffering imprisonments, beatings, at least one shipwreck and finally death? What mistake did he make to get so caught up?
Come on, Gordon, at least give it a try, please.
-
You need to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened. If you cannot do that, you have not provided an alternative explanation. For example, you have not explained why they would lie, how long you think it was between "events" (whatever they are), who might have misquoted whom and why. Heck, man, you don't even have the correct number of hours even roughly. Jesus was dead less than 48 hours (Friday afternoon to before first light Sunday).
You are doing it again, Alan, in challenging people to 'to come up with a plausible scenario of how it all happened' as 'alternative explanation' - you are presuming that it 'happened' as described in the NT.
That it didn't 'happen' at all is a plausible scenario that both fits known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all the various elements of the story (empty tomb etc): in that they didn't 'happen' at all.
Your "plausible scenario" needs to include why four gospel writers and other NT writers were convinced Jesus had been raised and that there was an empty tomb. Yes, people do lie, but why would this lot lie? If you think they were merely mistaken, how did they make that mistake? Please answer my questions.
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.
Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?
Thought not.
-
We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.
Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3: And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
You are still assuming that all these claims are facts - how do you know that they aren't fiction: you may choose to accept them on a personal basis but they still remain claims and not facts. After all the whole 'empty tomb' aspect is the type of detail that someone concocting a story to maintain the reputation of the recently dead Jesus as being divine might add in for effect: a definite risk, people being what they are.
Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
You still aren't getting this, Alan. Nobody is claiming that these early Christians knew that the resurrection was a hoax - I'd expect that they were just as sincere as you are in their Christian beliefs - the point here is that their preparedness to die doesn't mean that the story they sincerely believed is necessarily true.
So, I ask yet again, what is the explanation for all that went on? Why do we have various writers in the NT saying these things? You say no-one is claiming they knew it was a hoax, so do you mean they were just mistaken? If so, how did they make that mistake? How did they mistakenly come to be convinced that people on a dozen or so occasions were themselves convinced, in groups and as individual, that they had met with the risen Jesus and sometimes even eaten with them? How did they mistakenly come to believe that the tomb was empty? Why didn't the authorities just point out Jesus' rotting body in the tomb? Why did Saul make such a radical change to his life and become a fervent follower of Jesus, suffering imprisonments, beatings, at least one shipwreck and finally death? What mistake did he make to get so caught up?
Come on, Gordon, at least give it a try, please.
Rumour and self-delusion are the answer to all your questions.
-
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
But three of those accounts are certainly not independent and the fourth may not be. You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.
Even if there was an empty tomb, it is implausible that a dead man got up and walked away. It's much more likely that the body was moved by persons unknown or was never there are that the accounts are simply fiction.
I quite agree that the resurrection accounts are independent. Each author made up his own.
Assertion in need of some evidence.
That dead men do not come alive is not evidence enough for you?
So no commonality.... apart from the empty tomb, angels/men, women visiting the tomb and so on?
I think you'll find that I argued that there is commonality but with embellishments right up to the point in time where Mark's gospel ends.
And why did the disciples who visited the tomb think they saw angels/men, why did individuals and groups get convinced they met and spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus? Why the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated disciples?
All later rationalisation by people who weren't there.
I think it's entirely possible that Jesus' followers, expecting him to be the Messiah rationalised his early death by claiming that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, particularly if they couldn't find is body for whatever reason.
Everything else is just post hoc invention.
This is all far more plausible than Jesus actually rising from the dead.
Your explanation needs to cover all the facts, not just bits. Surely you see that?
You haven't established any facts. Surely you can see that? The gospel stories are just stories of unknown provenance.
I was replying to your, "You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.
Where do you think Josephus sourced the claims of Christian martyrs? If he didn't see them himself, he probably read them in a book or he heard them from Christians who read them in a book.
Dionysius, according to Wikipedia, lived around 171 AD, so that would be about 110 years after Peter and Paul were martyred (if they were martyred). Do you have any good reason to think he was wrong, bearing in mind he was living in the same city and headed up the church there?
You're the one who brought him up. It is for you to establish the credibility of his claim. In fact, you need to establish that Peter and Paul were executed for their beliefs and not for any other reason.
And actually, yes, I do have good reason for believing he was wrong we have an almost contemporary source (he was seven when the alleged events happened) who claims that the Christians in Rome were executed for allegedly starting the Great Fire.
If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
This is ancient Rome. They couldn't just hop on a plane and leave the country. We have no eye witness account of their trials or death. For all we know, the trial transcript could have gone like:
Peter: "I admit it was all a hoax"
Nero: "I don't care, I need you to die for the Great Fire so I don't get the blame".
Paul is interesting. He clearly believed Jesus rose from the dead without ever seeing the empty tomb or having dinner with Jesus before or after the crucifixion. Paul started believing based on a vision or hallucination. That blows your argument out of the water.
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
-
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
How do you disprove a story that isn't going to surface for another twenty years?
So Christianity didn't start until about 53 AD? There was no preaching of the gospel till then? There were no Christians in Jerusalem until at least 53 AD?
Really?
Are you incapable of imagining a scenario in which the Christians go off into hiding and don't come to the notice of the authorities until it breaks cover a few years later.
Your argument assumes that the authorities actually gave a toss about the Christians. Most likely they thought that executing Jesus would end it and by the time Christianity was again becoming a problem, there was no sign of his body. If it had been put in a mass grave as was custom for crucified criminals in those days, it would probably be lost within the week.
-
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.
Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?
Thought not.
There is no such thing as the 'whole thing' - your explanation assumes claims as facts, and is not evidence itself - it is entirely circular.
And is still shifting the burden of proof - I find your approach deeply dishonest.
-
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Where in Paul's letters is his account of the crucifixion? Where in his letters is his account of the resurrection? Yes he says Christ was executed. Yes he says various people saw Christ after his death, but there is no account of the empty tomb. There is no account of Jesus eating and drinking with people after his death. There is no account of Jesus travelling to Emmaus, Galilee or ascending into heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, (Peter) and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?
Saying "Jesus died" is not really an account. You'd expect a few details. He doesn't give an account of any of Jesus' resurrection appearances either, he just lists people who allegedly saw Jesus.
And I disagree with your characterisation of Paul's experience. It seems exactly like a vision or hallucination.
-
Yes. I do note your ambiguity though. A "dead man coming alive again" would normally mean a man coming to life again naturally. Is that what you mean? If not, why put it ambiguously?
Stop trying to pigeon hole my words. I didn't add any qualifier like "naturally" nor was there anything ambiguous in what I said.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
And I thought that was the whole point. If it's not supposed to be seen as so implausible, then it wouldn't be seen as miraculous and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
And I thought that was the whole point. If it's not supposed to be seen as so implausible, then it wouldn't be seen as miraculous and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Indeed it is also meant to be seen in normal terms as impossible, never mind implausible.
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here. To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention. Very disconcerting.
-
Alan
You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.
1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.
2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.
3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.
4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.
You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.
You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection.
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here. To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention. Very disconcerting.
If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here. To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention. Very disconcerting.
If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.
But that would be denying him one of his few pleasures in life! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here. To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention. Very disconcerting.
If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.
I don't believe in communism and have spent much time arguing against it in detail over a number of years. I must therefore be an acommunist obsessive nerd.
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here. To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention. Very disconcerting.
If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.
I don't believe in communism and have spent much time arguing against it in detail over a number of years. I must therefore be an acommunist obsessive nerd.
If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.
-
And the 'Christian' WUM, par excellence, has the cheek to talk about 'obsessive nerds'! Now that is very funny indeed! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And the 'Christian' WUM, par excellence, has the cheek to talk about 'obsessive nerds'! Now that is very funny indeed! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There you are again: on here prattling. You are an obsessive nerd, par excellence!
-
If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.
Being a nerd already implies having an obsessive nature - you're as well saying 'deluded faith-heads'... :)
O.
-
If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.
Being a nerd already implies having an obsessive nature - you're as well saying 'deluded faith-heads'... :)
O.
Well, if you say I am deluded, it's merely your opinion. Calling atheists obsessive nerds is proven simply by reading this forum every day.
-
One can take delight in knowing that those of us badmouthed by BA are doing something right. If he agreed with us on matters of faith we would need to be very concerned indeed! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
One can take delight in knowing that those of us badmouthed by BA are doing something right. If he agreed with us on matters of faith we would need to be very concerned indeed! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hysterical laughing at the end of your post, noted! :)
-
After several years of discussing this with you on and off I don't see you ever coming to the conclusion that Jesus did die and was raised from the dead.
Why on earth did you think I ever would, since every argument I've come across promoting Jesus/God is fallacious in one way or another.
I'm still unsure why you bold and italicise the word "know" each time you post to me.
Because you are presenting claims as being historical facts: I'm just pointing out that you don't have 'knowledge'; just a sense of personal conviction that these claims are true.
However, I would really appreciate it if you did try to come up with something which accounts for Jesus being killed by crucifixion, the empty tomb (as recorded by the four canonical gospels and assumed by Paul since he spoke of Jesus' bodily resurrection), people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups meeting and sometimes eating with what they were convinced was the risen Jesus and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and defeated disciples. If you don't believe the tomb was empty, what is your plausible scenario for why the four gospel writers and Paul thought it was?
I have - if propaganda is involved then this covers both the details (empty tomb etc) being fictitious and that those early Christians not 'in' on the propaganda itself were victims of it (just as you may be).
Will you do that for me one day? Please. You see the reason I keep asking you is that I have yet to see any non-Christian on this board give a plausible scenario. True you can explain away individual bits of the accounts on their own, but I don't remember anyone even trying to come up with a plausible overall scenario.
I just did.
-
Alan
You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.
1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.
2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.
3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.
4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.
You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.
You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection.
It doesn't read to me like am attempt to maintain Jesus' divinity. The gospel authors go to great lengths to show that Jesus was dead. Also that they got the right tomb. If you are going to try and prove a resurrection you've got to prove the death as well and show that the body was buried in a certain place.
-
Alan
You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.
1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.
2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.
3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.
4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.
You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.
You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection.
It doesn't read to me like am attempt to maintain Jesus' divinity. The gospel authors go to great lengths to show that Jesus was dead. Also that they got the right tomb. If you are going to try and prove a resurrection you've got to prove the death as well and show that the body was buried in a certain place.
No doubt - thing is, Spud, I'm not trying to 'prove a resurrection', since I don't think there was one! Indeed, since these accounts are just claims, I think there is a real risk that some or all of what is claimed about this alleged resurrection may be fictitious propaganda.
-
We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?
Christ's 'appearance' to Paul really should cause you to reflect on the veracity of all these resurrection accounts, since it recounts an entirely 'spiritual' Christ (added to which the accounts of the experience differ as to whether a voice was heard or not). John's account has Christ specifically referring to his physicality, and assuring his disciples that he is not a spirit. To reconcile all these discrepancies it is necessary to just keep spinning fantastical scenario after scenario.
-
Christ's 'appearance' to Paul really should cause you to reflect on the veracity of all these resurrection accounts, since it recounts an entirely 'spiritual' Christ (added to which the accounts of the experience differ as to whether a voice was heard or not). John's account has Christ specifically referring to his physicality, and assuring his disciples that he is not a spirit. To reconcile all these discrepancies it is necessary to just keep spinning fantastical scenario after scenario.
What is fantastical spinning about stating that Paul encountered Jesus at a time after his return to heaven. Yes, he was very clear about his being a physical being whilst with the 11/12 disciples, but there is no need to assume that he was merely physical, especially when he made it clear that he was God.
-
Christ's 'appearance' to Paul really should cause you to reflect on the veracity of all these resurrection accounts, since it recounts an entirely 'spiritual' Christ (added to which the accounts of the experience differ as to whether a voice was heard or not). John's account has Christ specifically referring to his physicality, and assuring his disciples that he is not a spirit. To reconcile all these discrepancies it is necessary to just keep spinning fantastical scenario after scenario.
What is fantastical spinning about stating that Paul encountered Jesus at a time after his return to heaven. Yes, he was very clear about his being a physical being whilst with the 11/12 disciples, but there is no need to assume that he was merely physical, especially when he made it clear that he was God.
Man rises from dead, and later appears as ghost - and it isn't fantastical? As pointed out earlier if it isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then it isn't really worth the effort.
-
We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.
Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3: And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
You are still assuming that all these claims are facts - how do you know that they aren't fiction: you may choose to accept them on a personal basis but they still remain claims and not facts. After all the whole 'empty tomb' aspect is the type of detail that someone concocting a story to maintain the reputation of the recently dead Jesus as being divine might add in for effect: a definite risk, people being what they are.
Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
You still aren't getting this, Alan. Nobody is claiming that these early Christians knew that the resurrection was a hoax - I'd expect that they were just as sincere as you are in their Christian beliefs - the point here is that their preparedness to die doesn't mean that the story they sincerely believed is necessarily true.
So, I ask yet again, what is the explanation for all that went on? Why do we have various writers in the NT saying these things? You say no-one is claiming they knew it was a hoax, so do you mean they were just mistaken? If so, how did they make that mistake? How did they mistakenly come to be convinced that people on a dozen or so occasions were themselves convinced, in groups and as individual, that they had met with the risen Jesus and sometimes even eaten with them? How did they mistakenly come to believe that the tomb was empty? Why didn't the authorities just point out Jesus' rotting body in the tomb? Why did Saul make such a radical change to his life and become a fervent follower of Jesus, suffering imprisonments, beatings, at least one shipwreck and finally death? What mistake did he make to get so caught up?
Come on, Gordon, at least give it a try, please.
Rumour and self-delusion are the answer to all your questions.
Please explain.
-
Man rises from dead, and later appears as ghost - and it isn't fantastical? As pointed out earlier if it isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then it isn't really worth the effort.
Moreover, if that isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then we're entitled to conclude that you don't really know what these words mean.
-
No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.
But three of those accounts are certainly not independent and the fourth may not be.
Why do you think they are not independent? You said earlier that the resurrection accounts are independent, yet you say the empty tomb accounts are not. Why do think that, please? You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.
As before, you and I disagree on this.
Even if there was an empty tomb, it is implausible that a dead man got up and walked away. It's much more likely that the body was moved by persons unknown or was never there are that the accounts are simply fiction.
But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.
I quite agree that the resurrection accounts are independent. Each author made up his own.
Assertion in need of some evidence.
That dead men do not come alive is not evidence enough for you?
I agree that dead men do not come alive unless there is a God who raises them. The only one I know of whom he raised, never to die again, is Jesus. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.
So no commonality.... apart from the empty tomb, angels/men, women visiting the tomb and so on?
I think you'll find that I argued that there is commonality but with embellishments right up to the point in time where Mark's gospel ends.
? Would you please fill that out a bit.
And why did the disciples who visited the tomb think they saw angels/men, why did individuals and groups get convinced they met and spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus? Why the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated disciples?
All later rationalisation by people who weren't there.
Why do you think they were not there? The Gospel-writers certainly thought they were there as did Paul (1 Cor 15).
I think it's entirely possible that Jesus' followers, expecting him to be the Messiah rationalised his early death by claiming that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, particularly if they couldn't find is body for whatever reason.
How would that work?
Everything else is just post hoc invention.
This is all far more plausible than Jesus actually rising from the dead.
Why?
Your explanation needs to cover all the facts, not just bits. Surely you see that?
You haven't established any facts. Surely you can see that? The gospel stories are just stories of unknown provenance.
OK, let me rephrase that. Your explanation needs to cover why the Gospel-writers and Paul and so on wrote those accounts. Do you not think they genuinely believed those accounts? If not, why not, please?
I was replying to your, "You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.
Where do you think Josephus sourced the claims of Christian martyrs? If he didn't see them himself, he probably read them in a book or he heard them from Christians who read them in a book.
Why probably? Please show your workings.
Dionysius, according to Wikipedia, lived around 171 AD, so that would be about 110 years after Peter and Paul were martyred (if they were martyred). Do you have any good reason to think he was wrong, bearing in mind he was living in the same city and headed up the church there?
You're the one who brought him up. It is for you to establish the credibility of his claim. In fact, you need to establish that Peter and Paul were executed for their beliefs and not for any other reason.
And actually, yes, I do have good reason for believing he was wrong we have an almost contemporary source (he was seven when the alleged events happened) who claims that the Christians in Rome were executed for allegedly starting the Great Fire.
If you mean Tacitus, I like the term "almost contemporary source". I'll remember that since he was writing in about 112 AD. Even better we have the Gospels and Paul from well before them. That would make them "very nearly contemporary sources", would it not?
As for Christians in Rome being executed for allegedly starting the Great Fire, Tacitus clearly does not believe they started it, but explains that Nero used them as a scapegoat.
From the Wikipedia article, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judća, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Anyway, I don't know Dionysius' source(s), but he was living in the city where the alleged martyrdoms took place. We know from Acts that Paul was in Rome at least at one point and was in prison there.
If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?
This is ancient Rome. They couldn't just hop on a plane and leave the country. We have no eye witness account of their trials or death. For all we know, the trial transcript could have gone like:
Peter: "I admit it was all a hoax"
Nero: "I don't care, I need you to die for the Great Fire so I don't get the blame".
Really. I doubt whether Nero was at any trial.
Paul is interesting. He clearly believed Jesus rose from the dead without ever seeing the empty tomb or having dinner with Jesus before or after the crucifixion. Paul started believing based on a vision or hallucination. That blows your argument out of the water.
Why do you think it was a vision or a hallucination? Remember he also spent time with Peter and James (see Gal 1 end).
-
That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.
Apart from all the assertions and other holes.
-
Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.
It is that simple.
How do you disprove a story that isn't going to surface for another twenty years?
So Christianity didn't start until about 53 AD? There was no preaching of the gospel till then? There were no Christians in Jerusalem until at least 53 AD?
Really?
Are you incapable of imagining a scenario in which the Christians go off into hiding and don't come to the notice of the authorities until it breaks cover a few years later.
Your argument assumes that the authorities actually gave a toss about the Christians. Most likely they thought that executing Jesus would end it and by the time Christianity was again becoming a problem, there was no sign of his body. If it had been put in a mass grave as was custom for crucified criminals in those days, it would probably be lost within the week.
So why did the Gospel-writers lie about what happened? What would their motive have been?
-
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.
Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?
Thought not.
There is no such thing as the 'whole thing' - your explanation assumes claims as facts, and is not evidence itself - it is entirely circular.
And is still shifting the burden of proof - I find your approach deeply dishonest.
So why do you think the Gospel-writers and Paul claimed those things happened?
-
Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations. Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD. In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Where in Paul's letters is his account of the crucifixion? Where in his letters is his account of the resurrection? Yes he says Christ was executed. Yes he says various people saw Christ after his death, but there is no account of the empty tomb. There is no account of Jesus eating and drinking with people after his death. There is no account of Jesus travelling to Emmaus, Galilee or ascending into heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, (Peter) and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?
Saying "Jesus died" is not really an account. You'd expect a few details. He doesn't give an account of any of Jesus' resurrection appearances either, he just lists people who allegedly saw Jesus.
He doesn't tell us what time of day it was or where they took place, but he does tell us some of the people claiming to have seen the resurrected Jesus, including Peter whom he spoke to not long (<3 years?) after Jesus' crucifixion (Galatians 1).
And I disagree with your characterisation of Paul's experience. It seems exactly like a vision or hallucination.
A vision or hallucination that other people heard? How does that work?
-
But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around.
And this is what you regard as plausible, is it?
I agree that dead men do not come alive unless there is a God who raises them. The only one I know of whom he raised, never to die again, is Jesus.
Believe, not know. It's a belief, not an item of knowledge.
You're invoking Hope's "If God, then magic" non-argument. Doubtless it's integral to theism. Make shit up with absolutely no regard for testable, verifiable evidence and you can claim absolutely anything.
As, indeed, your lot actually do.
-
Yes. I do note your ambiguity though. A "dead man coming alive again" would normally mean a man coming to life again naturally. Is that what you mean? If not, why put it ambiguously?
Stop trying to pigeon hole my words. I didn't add any qualifier like "naturally" nor was there anything ambiguous in what I said.
Yes, there is. If you wanted to be unambiguous, you would right something like "whom God allegedly raised from the dead". Perhaps it is just sloppiness?
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
-
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.
Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?
Thought not.
There is no such thing as the 'whole thing' - your explanation assumes claims as facts, and is not evidence itself - it is entirely circular.
And is still shifting the burden of proof - I find your approach deeply dishonest.
So why do you think the Gospel-writers and Paul claimed those things happened?
not a clue, not even sure who these people are so have insufficient information to even hazard a guess.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
God wasn't mentioned here, you've just changed the game by adding that in now.
And you pretty much just said so yourself that it's impossible without god, so you agree.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
"God" himself is implausible. People coming back from death is implausible. You'd hardly expect to get a plausible from two implausibles, would you?
-
Indeed, since these accounts are just claims, I think there is a real risk that some or all of what is claimed about this alleged resurrection may be fictitious propaganda.
The propaganda theory doesn't explain why, for example, they say that Jesus was seen by the women first. Or that the grave clothes were folded neatly.
-
Indeed, since these accounts are just claims, I think there is a real risk that some or all of what is claimed about this alleged resurrection may be fictitious propaganda.
The propaganda theory doesn't explain why,, for example, they say that Jesus was seen by the women first. Or that the grave clothes were folded neatly.
Of course it does - these are details that could be part of a fictional resurrection story, along with that there was an empty tomb etc: these are just claims, Spud, not historical facts.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
I'd be most likely to presume some 'David Blaine' style deception had occurred.
O.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Certainly.
Provided there was CCTV from the point of death from crucifixion and that a fully qualified medical team with suitable equipment first confirmed that the injuries and cause of death was consistent with crucifixion, that brain death was established, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer, and there was then a return to full biological functions sufficient for the recently deceased to (as Alan often reminds us) interact with others and share meals.
If that was the case, and the medical results confirming this after being subjected to separate peer review, then it would be a serious proposition.
Meantime though we have a bunch of ancient anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, and that you guys are taking far too literally.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
I'd be most likely to presume some 'David Blaine' style deception had occurred.
O.
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Certainly.
Provided there was CCTV from the point of death from crucifixion and that a fully qualified medical team with suitable equipment first confirmed that the injuries and cause of death was consistent with crucifixion, that brain death was established, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer, and there was then a return to full biological functions sufficient for the recently deceased to (as Alan often reminds us) interact with others and share meals.
If that was the case, and the medical results confirming this after being subjected to separate peer review, then it would be a serious proposition.
Meantime though we have a bunch of ancient anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, and that you guys are taking far too literally.
This is the kind of evidence Thomas wanted- his request was a bit more simple though!
-
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
Human perception is both limited and over-rated - eye-witness accounts are far from reliable, and the weaknesses of both human sensory perception and mental processing are increasingly well-studied.
We are easy to deceive, especially when we have preconceptions to play on: if someone sets up a 'mock crucifiction', and all the appearances concur with the idea of a crucifiction, we're going to presume that a crucifiction is happening.
If, later on, despite how well I was observing the situation, the crucified guy walks back into the room I wouldn't presume magic or the suspension of the normal laws of physics, I'd put a recommendation on their Facebook page and walk away wondering how they'd done it.
No matter how convincing the original display is, I'd still put an unknown but rational explanation as more likely than an unknown 'supernatural' explanation: deception, no matter how difficult or convoluted, is still a more likely explanation than 'a god did it'.
O.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Certainly.
Provided there was CCTV from the point of death from crucifixion and that a fully qualified medical team with suitable equipment first confirmed that the injuries and cause of death was consistent with crucifixion, that brain death was established, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer, and there was then a return to full biological functions sufficient for the recently deceased to (as Alan often reminds us) interact with others and share meals.
If that was the case, and the medical results confirming this after being subjected to separate peer review, then it would be a serious proposition.
Meantime though we have a bunch of ancient anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, and that you guys are taking far too literally.
This is the kind of evidence Thomas wanted- his request was a bit more simple though!
He lived in simpler times though!
-
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
You managed to get inside an envelope? Nice one!
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
I'd be most likely to presume some 'David Blaine' style deception had occurred.
O.
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
How do you know John (assuming just for a second that he actually said what you say he did say) wasn't over egging the pudding for effect?
-
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
You managed to get inside an envelope? Nice one!
:) He was quite the magician, I can tell you!
O.
-
I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.
-
I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.
Jolly good - you do that, but be careful not to confuse your personal assumptions or unsupported ancient claims with facts.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Your example doesn't match the actual sight of a resurrection.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.
-
Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?
Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.
Ah, but to be fair to Spud, he didn't mention god or the supernatural here, just a resurrection.
-
Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.
Sorry, NS, your claim that nothing has been forthcoming is a lie. What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas. That doesn't mean that they aren't valid. As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.
-
What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas.
What methodologies?
That doesn't mean that they aren't valid.
That depends on the methodologies that we have yet to see the details of.
As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.
These 'parts of life' are what, exactly?
-
Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.
Sorry, NS, your claim that nothing has been forthcoming is a lie. What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas. That doesn't mean that they aren't valid. As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.
If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.
-
If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.
Hang on, you have already stated that you "would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism". This shows that you assume that any methodology has to fit the parameters of scientific naturalism. Ironically, over the months you have regularly reiterated that any non-naturalistic methodology isn't a methodology - so I'm not wasting my time revisiting the methodology that I, Jim, Alien and others have laid out for you in the past.
-
If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.
Hang on, you have already stated that you "would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism". This shows that you assume that any methodology has to fit the parameters of scientific naturalism. Ironically, over the months you have regularly reiterated that any non-naturalistic methodology isn't a methodology - so I'm not wasting my time revisiting the methodology that I, Jim, Alien and others have laid out for you in the past.
No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.
-
No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.
But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.
-
No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.
But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.
Not in my experience. You either totally misunderstand or you're a mahoosive bullshitter. Do you not realise that when asking for a method for supernatural claims, then that's pretty much the antithesis of expecting it to fit naturalism?
-
No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.
But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.
I haven't seen any coherent methodology - and to be frank I haven't seen even an incoherent one. So I'm not ruling it out. I'm asking for it - so come on stop being evasive and just describe it, link to it rather than this dissembling.
-
I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.
#
Only if they were unquestioning and gullible!
-
A vision or hallucination that other people heard? How does that work?
Well, no one heard a voice, according to Acts 22:9
"Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me".
Which of course contradicts Paul's account in his epistles.
-
I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.
Since this text was written much later than Paul's account of his supposed experience of Christ and his extensive ruminations on Christ's resurrection and that of humanity in general (which probably the majority of Christians purport to believe in), you need to consider just why there are such differences and, for a start, suspect that later cannot be trusted in its details.
All this seems to involve a remarkable capacity for double-think. You are of course familiar with 1Corinthians 15, where Paul states the absolute distinction between the physical and the spiritual:
""[43]The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
------------
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
[50] I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Yet at the end of John's gospel, Jesus is saying he is not a spirit, and directly pointing to his physical wounds to demonstrate the solid reality of his physical body.
I see good reason for doubting all these accounts (on the lines that Gordon, Jeremy and others have stated), and the traditional explanations just have me rolling my eyes.
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
NS is correct.
The post of mine you have quoted an extract from was to note (albeit sarcastically) that the type of medical evidence that would be robust enough to confirm resurrection from traumatic injury and confirmed brain death 2/3 days post-mortem with biological recovery sufficient to interact and share meals with others, which is what Alan tells us, doesn't exist and that current knowledge about death is sufficient to conclude that a 'corpse' (or indeed a dead body) that had been clinically dead for 2/3 days would remain quite dead.
So, if you are going to claim that Jesus was dead, and then wasn't etc, then a method based on naturalism doesn't help so you would need to define what non-naturalistic phenomena 'is' in the first place, and also a methodology that can be used to identify and describe 'it'. That you think the anecdotal claims in the NT 'is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.' does raise other problems, confirmation bias being just one, and what constitutes 'evidence' being another.
On that issue, Gordon says, 'Blessed are those who don't believe everything they read'.
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
In other words, 'Blessed be the gullible'! ::)
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?
-
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
Spud, I think that NS and several others here are being ingenuous, because although they are happy to accept the eye-witness accounts of people living today, they refuse to accept the eye-witness accounts of people from certain parts of history when those eye-witness accounts witness to events that don't fit their understanding of the universe ;)
Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by science, NS. Is it the narrow discipline that is so prevalent today - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
or the archaic and broader Knowledge of any kind
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
-
In other words, 'Blessed be the gullible'! ::)
So, you are clearly gullible in that you believe ( I assume) that there were atrocities committed by the British during the Boer War, even though you weren't there and you rely on eye-witness accounts and third-party reports.
-
Spud, I think that NS and several others here are being ingenuous, because although they are happy to accept the eye-witness accounts of people living today, they refuse to accept the eye-witness accounts of people from certain parts of history when those eye-witness accounts witness to events that don't fit their understanding of the universe ;)
I'm not sure that's the case. Whilst we accept that people believe their own eye-witness accounts these days, that doesn't mean we accept them as true: that's what people believe they saw, but people are fallible.
As to the ancient accounts, part of the scepticism is whether the people making the accounts actually were eye-witnesses, or whether these are second-, third- or fourth-hand accounts. When you add in the selective editing that the works have undergone since, that makes the accounts credibility undermined still further.
Eye-witness accounts are lent credibility by corroboration, also, and there's very little of that available for accounts from these works, even by comparison to some other documents of the same age.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by science, NS. Is it the narrow discipline that is so prevalent today - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
or the archaic and broader Knowledge of any kind
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
Science is methodological naturalism. You have phenomena, you hypthesise about the causitive factors of those phenomena, devise a methodology to test the hypothesis and formulate provisional explanations based upon the best validated hypotheses. That's a methodology - what you start with, how you build confidence in your understanding and why you accept some answers and not others.
What's the supernatural equivalent?
O.
-
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
Spud, I think that NS and several others here are being ingenuous, because although they are happy to accept the eye-witness accounts of people living today, they refuse to accept the eye-witness accounts of people from certain parts of history when those eye-witness accounts witness to events that don't fit their understanding of the universe ;)
Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by science, NS. Is it the narrow discipline that is so prevalent today - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
or the archaic and broader Knowledge of any kind
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
Why would I be using an archaic definition? And by the way I'm in no way being disngenuous here, I am prepared to accept eye witness testimony if it can be investigated. I need a methodology to do that in addition to scince, vboth history as a study and law as a practice are naturalistic.
Any chance of you actually providing the methodology you think exists for supernatural claims rather than continuing to be evasive?
-
So, you are clearly gullible in that you believe ( I assume) that there were atrocities committed by the British during the Boer War, even though you weren't there and you rely on eye-witness accounts and third-party reports.
This is another of your odd descents into tu quoque like arguments: you seem to be suggesting here that by doubting/rejecting one set of alleged eye-witness accounts (the resurrection of Jesus claim) requires that one must necessarily do the same for all eye-witness accounts of anything (such as conduct during the Boer War) - this is a daft notion.
As far as I'm aware nobody is trying to use any Boer War accounts of alleged atrocities to demonstrate supernatural intervention, as is the case in the accounts of the alleged resurrection of Jesus; this seems like an important difference in terms of going about verifying the accounts of these two separate situations, where the supernatural element of the latter would surely need a method that was specific to that aspect of the claim.
Accounts alone would be insufficient unless your argument here extends to saying that all eye-witness accounts that claim supernatural intervention are sufficient evidence of the supernatural - if not, then you are indulging in special pleading for Jesus.
-
So, if you are going to claim that Jesus was dead, and then wasn't etc, then a method based on naturalism doesn't help so you would need to define what non-naturalistic phenomena 'is' in the first place, and also a methodology that can be used to identify and describe 'it'. That you think the anecdotal claims in the NT 'is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.' does raise other problems, confirmation bias being just one, and what constitutes 'evidence' being another.
I really disagree here. If it's posited that Jesus was dead and then wasn't within the natural world, then by definition it is a naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, potentially, the scientific method can investigate such a phenomena if it occurs, and it's only when god is added into the equation as the cause of that natural phenomena that it becomes impervious to science.
I'm starting to find here that a clear distinction needs to be made between a resurrection and a resurrection by god, as it's tripping a lot of people up.
-
Spud, I think that NS and several others here are being ingenuous, because although they are happy to accept the eye-witness accounts of people living today, they refuse to accept the eye-witness accounts of people from certain parts of history when those eye-witness accounts witness to events that don't fit their understanding of the universe ;)
If you think that we place eye-witness accounts in a vacuum and only evaluate them independently without any other background information, then you're a fool, but I suspect you're leaning more towards being disingenuous.
-
As to the ancient accounts, part of the scepticism is whether the people making the accounts actually were eye-witnesses, or whether these are second-, third- or fourth-hand accounts. When you add in the selective editing that the works have undergone since, that makes the accounts credibility undermined still further.
Do you actually have any evidence that negative 'selective editing' ever occurred? Remember that modern-day police have to select evidence that corroborates other evidence in building a case against criminals, etc. so this 'selective editing' seems to be quite acceptable to modern society.
Eye-witness accounts are lent credibility by corroboration, also, and there's very little of that available for accounts from these works, even by comparison to some other documents of the same age.
I think that, on other threads, we have come to an agreement that Paul's early work as an apostle took place very much in isolation from the original disciples. Furthermore, there are forms of Christianity that developed in complete isolation from that which developed in the Middle East - for instance, the Mar-Thoma Church in India.
Science is methodological naturalism. You have phenomena, you hypthesise about the causitive factors of those phenomena, devise a methodology to test the hypothesis and formulate provisional explanations based upon the best validated hypotheses. That's a methodology - what you start with, how you build confidence in your understanding and why you accept some answers and not others.
What's the supernatural equivalent?
O.
OK, let's take the resurraction story as an example (something that has been done very recently, as you will be aware). There are a number of possible explanations, all of which have to be assessed.
Option 1: He didn't actually die on the cross
Option 2: He died on the cross and the disciples stole the body from the grave
Option 3: He died on the cross and the Jewish authorities decided to hide the body in order to reduce the chance of a sect being established
Option 4: He rose from death and was seen by far more people than his small band of followers
OK, I'm sure that there are other subtly different forms of these 4 options, as well as additional ones, but this is just an example.
Option 1: the report of 'blood and water' is, even today, recognised as an indicator of death. The Roman soldiers who would have taken part in the act of crucifixion would have been experienced in knowing the signs. Therefore, in disussion with medics and others in this field of science I am happy to discount this as viable option.
Option 3: the suggestion that the Jewish authorities hid the body could easily have been proved to be true by the simple production of the body by the authorities. In view of the developments that took place very quickly after the events of crucufixion and burial, the boidy would not have beome unrecognisably decayed. Therefore, I am quite happy to discount this as a viable option.
Option 2: The disciples stole the body. In view of the other messianic claims that had been doing the rounds over the period of 50-100 years, no other disciple-group had tried this. When one remembers the politico-militaristic nature of many of these messianic claims compared to the peaceful nature of Jeis's messianic claims, one has to ask oneself which disciples would have been more likely to try this kind of action. When all is taken into account, I find this option as viable as options 1 & 3.
Option 4: Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for. Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.
One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.
-
I really disagree here. If it's posited that Jesus was dead and then wasn't within the natural world, then by definition it is a naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, potentially, the scientific method can investigate such a phenomena if it occurs, and it's only when god is added into the equation as the cause of that natural phenomena that it becomes impervious to science.
I'm starting to find here that a clear distinction needs to be made between a resurrection and a resurrection by god, as it's tripping a lot of people up.
Isn't the by god part implied by us discussing it with Christains who claim it was done by god and is non naturalistic.
-
If you're going to use something you consider to be 'humanly' impossible as an option, then your list of options might as well be endless in order to include all 'humanly' impossible things.
-
I really disagree here. If it's posited that Jesus was dead and then wasn't within the natural world, then by definition it is a naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, potentially, the scientific method can investigate such a phenomena if it occurs, and it's only when god is added into the equation as the cause of that natural phenomena that it becomes impervious to science.
I'm starting to find here that a clear distinction needs to be made between a resurrection and a resurrection by god, as it's tripping a lot of people up.
Isn't the by god part implied by us discussing it with Christains who claim it was done by god and is non naturalistic.
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
-
So, if you are going to claim that Jesus was dead, and then wasn't etc, then a method based on naturalism doesn't help so you would need to define what non-naturalistic phenomena 'is' in the first place, and also a methodology that can be used to identify and describe 'it'. That you think the anecdotal claims in the NT 'is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.' does raise other problems, confirmation bias being just one, and what constitutes 'evidence' being another.
I really disagree here. If it's posited that Jesus was dead and then wasn't within the natural world, then by definition it is a naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, potentially, the scientific method can investigate such a phenomena if it occurs, and it's only when god is added into the equation as the cause of that natural phenomena that it becomes impervious to science.
I'm starting to find here that a clear distinction needs to be made between a resurrection and a resurrection by god, as it's tripping a lot of people up.
Quite - what I've saying, such as in my post 271, is that if it this was just another naturalistic claim then it would be amenable to, for instance, a medical investigation and explanation.
However, what is being claimed here by theists seems to be something other than naturalism and, as such, they'd need a method that is specific to whatever this 'god' aspect is (or isn't) - but they seem to be coy on this front.
-
So, if you are going to claim that Jesus was dead, and then wasn't etc, then a method based on naturalism doesn't help so you would need to define what non-naturalistic phenomena 'is' in the first place, and also a methodology that can be used to identify and describe 'it'. That you think the anecdotal claims in the NT 'is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.' does raise other problems, confirmation bias being just one, and what constitutes 'evidence' being another.
I really disagree here. If it's posited that Jesus was dead and then wasn't within the natural world, then by definition it is a naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, potentially, the scientific method can investigate such a phenomena if it occurs, and it's only when god is added into the equation as the cause of that natural phenomena that it becomes impervious to science.
I'm starting to find here that a clear distinction needs to be made between a resurrection and a resurrection by god, as it's tripping a lot of people up.
Quite - what I've saying, such as in my post 271, is that if it this was just another naturalistic claim then it would be amenable to, for instance, a medical investigation and explanation.
However, what is being claimed here by theists seems to be something other than naturalism and, as such, they'd need a method that is specific to whatever this 'god' aspect is (or isn't) - but they seem to be coy on this front.
That's fair enough, but I still feel it is something we need to be cautious over, otherwise we all end up arguing past one another as we sing from different hymn sheets.
-
That's fair enough, but I still feel it is something we need to be cautious over, otherwise we all end up arguing past one another as we sing from different hymn sheets.
People have been doing this since I first got into this debate 40+ years ago, Andy.
-
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
Taht's what I've tried to do in my post #306
-
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
That's what I've tried to do in my post #306
Yes, and you included in there an option that you considered to be 'humanly' impossible. "Humanly" sounds a bit vague and wishy-washy, don't you just mean naturally impossible?
-
Yes, and you included in there an option that you considered to be 'humanly' impossible. "Humanly" sounds a bit vague and wishy-washy, don't you just mean naturally impossible?
No, I don't mean 'naturally impossible'. I know that a lot of people like to equate 'science' with 'natural' (as in the 'laws of nature'). For me, nature goes far beyond what these 'laws of nature' are said to describe. It is partly way I tend not to refer to the 'supernatural', but use the term 'supranatural' which I use to refer to elements of nature that 'transcend' the much-vaunted 'laws of nature' that science relies on.
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?
Well, I personally see what happened in the case of Jesus as being as comprehensive a test for a supernatural event as could possibly be done. It could only have been more comprehensive if he had appeared on the roof of the temple so that everyone who played a part in his death could see him alive again. But he chose not to, understandably.
It seems that what you are actually after is a methodology that enables you to understand how the resurrection happened. That would indeed be naturalistic.
-
Yes, and you included in there an option that you considered to be 'humanly' impossible. "Humanly" sounds a bit vague and wishy-washy, don't you just mean naturally impossible?
No, I don't mean 'naturally impossible'. I know that a lot of people like to equate 'science' with 'natural' (as in the 'laws of nature'). For me, nature goes far beyond what these 'laws of nature' are said to describe. It is partly way I tend not to refer to the 'supernatural', but use the term 'supranatural' which I use to refer to elements of nature that 'transcend' the much-vaunted 'laws of nature' that science relies on.
From what I see, it's more a case of you assuming people equate science with nature, but hey-ho.
And what you've described has made what it means to be "natural" as redundant. It's all just 'supranature' which just supersedes nature as and whenever.
Plus, as I've already stated, you've exhausted your list of options at one 'humanly' impossible scenario, when the list should be saturated by them.
-
Hope
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a person that we refer to as Jesus, and he the was a charismatic preacher with a band of dedicated followers but was (for whatever reasons) executed as a trouble maker.
Within the bounds of naturalism there seem to be just two options.
1. Jesus was routinely killed, he stayed dead and his body routinely disposed of. The resurrection stuff is 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda arising from people within his following, and that the credulity of others allowing this propaganda to grow arms and legs. That people fabricate stuff, make mistakes or are gullible is part of known human behaviour that can't be dismissed without indulging in special pleading that early Christians were immune from human artifice.
2. Jesus wasn't dead at all if it is true that he was seen later.
If we accept that Jesus was actually killed then we reject option 2.
If you are going to go for an option 3 involving divine intervention then you'd need something additional to human testimony, since what people say would be insufficient given the risks of lies or mistakes - you'd need 'something' that would provide an explanation that was mutually exclusive from anything naturalistic (such as what people say and do).
Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for. Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.
One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.
Here you are falling into fallacious arguments from incredulity, ignorance and authority.
-
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
As Gordon has pointed out that leads to his method of checking if a resuurection had happened, rather like you can investigate claims of miracles to establish if what is claim to have happened did. If you find it did, but have no explanation of how, then it is simply unexplained.
-
Well, I personally see what happened in the case of Jesus as being as comprehensive a test for a supernatural event as could possibly be done. It could only have been more comprehensive if he had appeared on the roof of the temple so that everyone who played a part in his death could see him alive again. But he chose not to, understandably.
It seems that what you are actually after is a methodology that enables you to understand how the resurrection happened. That would indeed be naturalistic.
No, I am asking for a methoidology that allows me to conclude something supernatural happened. Can you provide it?
-
Yes, and you included in there an option that you considered to be 'humanly' impossible. "Humanly" sounds a bit vague and wishy-washy, don't you just mean naturally impossible?
No, I don't mean 'naturally impossible'. I know that a lot of people like to equate 'science' with 'natural' (as in the 'laws of nature'). For me, nature goes far beyond what these 'laws of nature' are said to describe. It is partly way I tend not to refer to the 'supernatural', but use the term 'supranatural' which I use to refer to elements of nature that 'transcend' the much-vaunted 'laws of nature' that science relies on.
I haven't seen anyone equate science with nature. It si as explained simply a method for exploring nature. If you think that there are things that cannot be inverstigated by it, you have to provide a method for determining that - which is what I have been asking for and you have not been supplying.
-
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
As Gordon has pointed out that leads to his method of checking if a resuurection had happened, rather like you can investigate claims of miracles to establish if what is claim to have happened did. If you find it did, but have no explanation of how, then it is simply unexplained.
Yes, agreed. Also, if we originally thought what was claimed was impossible, but it turns out it did happen, then what happens is our understanding of what is possible changes. I don't get the idea of clinging to it being impossible but for something unfalsifiable making it happen.
-
Yes, more often than not, but that doesn't mean the resurrection by itself can't be investigated using a naturalistic methodology, even if they do claim it was done by god.
As Gordon has pointed out that leads to his method of checking if a resuurection had happened, rather like you can investigate claims of miracles to establish if what is claim to have happened did. If you find it did, but have no explanation of how, then it is simply unexplained.
Yes, agreed. Also, if we originally thought what was claimed was impossible, but it turns out it did happen, then what happens is our understanding of what is possible changes. I don't get the idea of clinging to it being impossible but for something unfalsifiable making it happen.
Yes, I am not of the opinion that a resurrection did not happen because it is impossible but because the evidence provided is insufficient to conclude that it did happen.
If it did happen, I have no way of determining how other than to assume that it is naturalistic and investigable by science.
-
Do you actually have any evidence that negative 'selective editing' ever occurred? Remember that modern-day police have to select evidence that corroborates other evidence in building a case against criminals, etc. so this 'selective editing' seems to be quite acceptable to modern society.
Selective editing is only 'positive' or 'negative' in relation to particular angles. As to evidence for editing, I'd say that the mere existence of the New Testament apocrypha demonstrates the fact of that. I've read of textual analysis that suggests elements of various books in the NT have been subsequently amended, but confess that I lack the background to accurately assess those more detailed claims.
I think that, on other threads, we have come to an agreement that Paul's early work as an apostle took place very much in isolation from the original disciples.
I think it was agreed that the work attributed to Paul occurred in isolation to the author(s) of the other works, I'm not sure there's anything reliable to suggest that it's actually Paul.
Option 1: the report of 'blood and water' is, even today, recognised as an indicator of death. The Roman soldiers who would have taken part in the act of crucifixion would have been experienced in knowing the signs. Therefore, in disussion with medics and others in this field of science I am happy to discount this as viable option.
This works from an initial assumption that the event happened, which is far from demonstrable. As you say, the Romans of the day performed enough crucifictions, and other means of public execution, as to be reasonable confident that they could determine if someone was dead. The point of public executions is such that a large portion of the general populace would have seen more than a few executions. It's therefore easily conceivable that someone could have invented a crucifiction and merely alleged it was Jesus.
Investigations are replete with people convinced they have seen events they could not possibly have attended, and the more emotionally invested they are in the event the more likely to genuinely believe it they are.
Not only that, but say that 'Jesus' genuinely was put on a cross, and that event was genuinely attended by a collection of people who might be emotionally invested. Given the sentiments of the time, the Romans may have - I have no reason to think this, it's purely hypothetical - not wished to risk a riot and taken him down early. The watchers, well aware of why people are normally cut down, presume he's dead and create the sure and certain knowledge of the death scene that never happened.
I know that we have a tendency to imagine that ancient civilisation people were somehow more stupid than us, but this is a phenomenon we see in modern people, it's a facet of human nature.
Option 2: The disciples stole the body. In view of the other messianic claims that had been doing the rounds over the period of 50-100 years, no other disciple-group had tried this. When one remembers the politico-militaristic nature of many of these messianic claims compared to the peaceful nature of Jesus' messianic claims, one has to ask oneself which disciples would have been more likely to try this kind of action. When all is taken into account, I find this option as viable as options 1 & 3.
Other groups had been making claims and gaining no traction - that's a motivation for this group to try something different, surely?
Option 4: Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for. Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.
No. I don't understand does not mean "therefore magic." I don't know means just that, I don't know. You appear to be trying to set up a 'methodology' that is essentially a false dichotomy: the God of the Gaps.
Science explains lots of things, but what science doesn't explain is therefore the work of a god. Firstly, that's not a methodology, and secondly it fails to appreciate (ironically, given the foundations of Abrahamic mythology) that humans are imperfect: our science isn't finished, so what we don't understand today we might tomorrow.
Even if we never understand something through science, though, that doesn't mean 'therefore gods'. That's not a methodology, that's just an assertion.
One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.
So? That's what distinguishes your unsubstantiated claims from those of, say, Hinduism. We're not looking for details of what your claims are, we're asking for a method to determine if there's any justification for accepting the claims.
O.
-
I think it was agreed that the work attributed to Paul occurred in isolation to the author(s) of the other works, I'm not sure there's anything reliable to suggest that it's actually Paul.
I wasn't referring to the documentation, some of which is regarded as Pauline and some not. I was referring to the work he did around the Eastern Med. between about the mid-30s and the mid-40s, before he spent any real time with the original apostles.
This works from an initial assumption that the event happened, which is far from demonstrable. As you say, the Romans of the day performed enough crucifictions, and other means of public execution, as to be reasonable confident that they could determine if someone was dead. The point of public executions is such that a large portion of the general populace would have seen more than a few executions. It's therefore easily conceivable that someone could have invented a crucifiction and merely alleged it was Jesus.
That is an interesting suggestion. Don't think anyone has suggested it before. ;) As such, it doesn't address the question we were discussing.
Investigations are replete with people convinced they have seen events they could not possibly have attended, and the more emotionally invested they are in the event the more likely to genuinely believe it they are.
Which, in itself, assumes that there were more members of Jesus' party of followers present at the event than those who the Gospels report were.
Not only that, but say that 'Jesus' genuinely was put on a cross, and that event was genuinely attended by a collection of people who might be emotionally invested.
See above
Given the sentiments of the time, the Romans may have - I have no reason to think this, it's purely hypothetical - not wished to risk a riot and taken him down early. The watchers, well aware of why people are normally cut down, presume he's dead and create the sure and certain knowledge of the death scene that never happened.
The implications of this are that the Romans wanted to execute Jesus. Records suggest that they saw no guilt in him, so wouldn't have been worried about the possibility of a riot.
Other groups had been making claims and gaining no traction - that's a motivation for this group to try something different, surely?
If the message of this messiah had been the same as previous ones, maybe.
No. I don't understand does not mean "therefore magic."
I'd agree wholeheartedly. The very fact that you have to resort to the idea of magic points to the pointlessness of its use.
I don't know means just that, I don't know. You appear to be trying to set up a 'methodology' that is essentially a false dichotomy: the God of the Gaps.
No, not a God of the Gaps, but a God of the supra-scientific which means a completely different thing.
Science explains lots of things, but what science doesn't explain is therefore the work of a god.
If you want to believe that, it doesn't bother me. I don't. What I have explained is that there are aspects of life which are, by their very nature, non-scientific. Poetry, for instance.
Even if we never understand something through science, though, that doesn't mean 'therefore gods'. That's not a methodology, that's just an assertion.
I agree, which is why I don't subscribe to that idea.
-
What I have explained is that there are aspects of life which are, by their very nature, non-scientific. Poetry, for instance.
I'd question whether poetry (or, indeed, any aesthetic judgment) was beyond psychology and neurology in principle - certainly beyond our capacity now, but not in principle.
Even if we never understand something through science, though, that doesn't mean 'therefore gods'. That's not a methodology, that's just an assertion.
I agree, which is why I don't subscribe to that idea.
Which still doesn't leave us with any sort of alternative methodology - a supernatural counterpart to the methodological naturalism of science - by which we can assess the likelihood or veracity of any of these claims.
O.
-
What I have explained is that there are aspects of life which are, by their very nature, non-scientific. Poetry, for instance.
I'd question whether poetry (or, indeed, any aesthetic judgment) was beyond psychology and neurology in principle - certainly beyond our capacity now, but not in principle.
Yes, this idea that something that is not actual science is non scientifically explainable is a very odd one.
-
What I have explained is that there are aspects of life which are, by their very nature, non-scientific. Poetry, for instance.
I'd question whether poetry (or, indeed, any aesthetic judgment) was beyond psychology and neurology in principle - certainly beyond our capacity now, but not in principle.
Yes, this idea that something that is not actual science is non scientifically explainable is a very odd one.
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
-
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
Then why does only one species display it?
-
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
Then why does only one species display it?
I'm sorry, Cyber, but that is nonsense. Many species choose a particular mate out of several, and if their advances are rejected (for aesthetic reasons) they have to look for another.
-
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
Then why does only one species display it?
I'm sorry, Cyber, but that is nonsense. Many species choose a particular mate out of several, and if their advances are rejected (for aesthetic reasons) they have to look for another.
No, I know many species display preference for certain mates, of course. What I mean is you are saying that the general aesthetic sense which humans display derives solely from that mating pressure. I am asking why, since many species have that pressure in their evolutionary history, does only one of them display aesthetic judgement in other areas (e.g., art, music..)
-
No, I know many species display preference for certain mates, of course. What I mean is you are saying that the general aesthetic sense which humans display derives solely from that mating pressure. I am asking why, since many species have that pressure in their evolutionary history, does only one of them display aesthetic judgement in other areas (e.g., art, music..)
Once again you are wrong, if you are implying that only humans do this. Study the activity of bower birds.
-
No, I know many species display preference for certain mates, of course. What I mean is you are saying that the general aesthetic sense which humans display derives solely from that mating pressure. I am asking why, since many species have that pressure in their evolutionary history, does only one of them display aesthetic judgement in other areas (e.g., art, music..)
Once again you are wrong, if you are implying that only humans do this. Study the activity of bower birds.
Are you seriously suggesting that bower birds have a sense of artistic appreciation?? What nonsense!. They simply respond to hardwired triggers, as does a spider building its web.
-
No, I know many species display preference for certain mates, of course. What I mean is you are saying that the general aesthetic sense which humans display derives solely from that mating pressure. I am asking why, since many species have that pressure in their evolutionary history, does only one of them display aesthetic judgement in other areas (e.g., art, music..)
Once again you are wrong, if you are implying that only humans do this. Study the activity of bower birds.
Are you seriously suggesting that bower birds have a sense of artistic appreciation?? What nonsense!. They simply respond to hardwired triggers, as does a spider building its web.
No they don't. They have been observed constructing their bowers, and will decorate it with coloured scraps, hop back to look at the effect, and then change their position until they are satisfied with the overall effect. If that isn't showing aesthetic sense, what do you call it?
Furthermore, many male birds have courtship plumage/dances which is then judged by the female as acceptable or rejected. Once aqain, what else can that be other than aesthetic choice?
-
No they don't. They have been observed constructing their bowers, and will decorate it with coloured scraps, hop back to look at the effect, and then change their position until they are satisfied with the overall effect. If that isn't showing aesthetic sense, what do you call it?
Furthermore, many male birds have courtship plumage/dances which is then judged by the female as acceptable or rejected. Once aqain, what else can that be other than aesthetic choice?
In both cases, the answer is, as already given "They simply respond to hardwired triggers, as does a spider building its web."
-
No they don't. They have been observed constructing their bowers, and will decorate it with coloured scraps, hop back to look at the effect, and then change their position until they are satisfied with the overall effect. If that isn't showing aesthetic sense, what do you call it?
Furthermore, many male birds have courtship plumage/dances which is then judged by the female as acceptable or rejected. Once aqain, what else can that be other than aesthetic choice?
In both cases, the answer is, as already given "They simply respond to hardwired triggers, as does a spider building its web."
Not so. A spider builds its web to trap food, and it has nothing to do with mating. If you will google for "partner choice for reproducing" you will find many examples.
However, if you have decided that it is not choice but just instinctive, there is little else we can say.
-
if you have decided that it is not choice but just instinctive, there is little else we can say.
I haven't decided it - I am aware of no science which indicates that the birds are making a conscious choice. Are you?
-
if you have decided that it is not choice but just instinctive, there is little else we can say.
I haven't decided it - I am aware of no science which indicates that the birds are making a conscious choice. Are you?
If they choose between different partners, of course they are making a conscious choice.
-
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
And what does this have to do with poetry and the fact that often the sum of the meanings of the words used have little or nothing to do with the meaning of the poem?
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
Nope.
-
I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.
We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.
Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?
Thought not.
There is no such thing as the 'whole thing' - your explanation assumes claims as facts, and is not evidence itself - it is entirely circular.
And is still shifting the burden of proof - I find your approach deeply dishonest.
So why do you think the Gospel-writers and Paul claimed those things happened?
not a clue, not even sure who these people are so have insufficient information to even hazard a guess.
Go on, NS. Don't be shy.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Your assumption of naturalism.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
God wasn't mentioned here, you've just changed the game by adding that in now.
Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
And you pretty much just said so yourself that it's impossible without god, so you agree.
If there is no God, it is impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. (Not G implies not R). That is what you have said here. Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a God. (R implies G - aka Modus Tollens).
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
"God" himself is implausible.
Why? What is your evidence?People coming back from death is implausible.
Naturally, yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but tht is not what we are claiming happened.You'd hardly expect to get a plausible from two implausibles, would you?
N/a.
-
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
Human perception is both limited and over-rated - eye-witness accounts are far from reliable, and the weaknesses of both human sensory perception and mental processing are increasingly well-studied.
We are easy to deceive, especially when we have preconceptions to play on: if someone sets up a 'mock crucifiction', and all the appearances concur with the idea of a crucifiction, we're going to presume that a crucifiction is happening.
If, later on, despite how well I was observing the situation, the crucified guy walks back into the room I wouldn't presume magic or the suspension of the normal laws of physics, I'd put a recommendation on their Facebook page and walk away wondering how they'd done it.
No matter how convincing the original display is, I'd still put an unknown but rational explanation as more likely than an unknown 'supernatural' explanation: deception, no matter how difficult or convoluted, is still a more likely explanation than 'a god did it'.
O.
OK, as has been offered before, show us how it was done. I've got a cross, some nails and a spear. Are you up for it?
-
A vision or hallucination that other people heard? How does that work?
Well, no one heard a voice, according to Acts 22:9
"Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me".
Which of course contradicts Paul's account in his epistles.
Nope. The NT was written in Greek, not English (as you know). https://carm.org/paul-hear-voice
-
, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer,
Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)
I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.
On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".
In other words, 'Blessed be the gullible'! ::)
How about contributing to the conversation, floo?
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Your assumption of naturalism.
If magic then talking snakes, donkeys, demons, zombies, angels are all plausible.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Your assumption of naturalism.
no, probability as it is taught as branch of science and used in the study of history in all schools and universities in this country, since as a branch of science it is methodological naturalistic, as is the study of history.
-
Hope
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a person that we refer to as Jesus, and he the was a charismatic preacher with a band of dedicated followers but was (for whatever reasons) executed as a trouble maker.
Within the bounds of naturalism there seem to be just two options.
1. Jesus was routinely killed, he stayed dead and his body routinely disposed of. The resurrection stuff is 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda arising from people within his following, and that the credulity of others allowing this propaganda to grow arms and legs. That people fabricate stuff, make mistakes or are gullible is part of known human behaviour that can't be dismissed without indulging in special pleading that early Christians were immune from human artifice.
2. Jesus wasn't dead at all if it is true that he was seen later.
If we accept that Jesus was actually killed then we reject option 2.
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
If you are going to go for an option 3 involving divine intervention then you'd need something additional to human testimony, since what people say would be insufficient given the risks of lies or mistakes - you'd need 'something' that would provide an explanation that was mutually exclusive from anything naturalistic (such as what people say and do).
Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for. Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.
One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.
Here you are falling into fallacious arguments from incredulity, ignorance and authority.
For non-eyewitnesses there is a problem, yes.
-
Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.
And what does this have to do with poetry and the fact that often the sum of the meanings of the words used have little or nothing to do with the meaning of the poem?
Everything! It shows that we, along with many other species, inherited our aesthetic sense (choice of one thing being more attractive than another).
It was only natural that we would begin to project this "sense" on to other things than simple mate choice. As the human brain grew, so did its ability to think in many other directions, and once communication and language evolved, so did the applications of our aesthetic sense into what we have today.
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
Yep - even without deliberate attempts to mislead the risk of error is an obvious problem with any eye-witness reports.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
Yep - even without deliberate attempts to mislead the risk of error is an obvious problem with any eye-witness reports.
Agreed.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts. I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence. And by that I mean seeing someone who it was reported as being dead.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts. I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.
But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts. I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.
But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?
I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there. I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts. I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.
But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?
I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there. I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .
Which is not what is being asked? Could they be wrong? If yes, that applies to any claims and is made even stronger with less numbers with are way less documented.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.
You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death. News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."
So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?
I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts. I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.
But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?
I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there. I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .
Which is not what is being asked? Could they be wrong? If yes, that applies to any claims and is made even stronger with less numbers with are way less documented.
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
But the people who flew those planes did not, as far as I know, claim to have witnessed first hand the events on which their religion was founded. I am not sure how this really addresses the point?
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.
As for the pilots who committed suicide, it was their belief in Islam and the 'reward' they were going to get.
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?
I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.
As for the pilots who committed suicide, it was their belief in Islam and the 'reward' they were going to get.
I would like to know what is wrong with you. Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand
The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point. In fact, the two bear no resemblance. The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western. They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch. The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen. There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion, and especially no intent to die for what they were saying: they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced. I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom. That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.
-
I would like to know what is wrong with you. Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand
The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point. In fact, the two bear no resemblance. The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western. They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch. The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen. There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion, and especially no intent to die for what they were saying: they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced. I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom. That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.
There is nothing wrong with me, BA ... the fault is yours. You are unobservant and bitchy.
If you look again you will see I was answering Cyberman's post which contained both references, it was not me making the comparison.
I wish you would not trail around after me looking for imaginary things to complain about. You're a childish twit! :)
-
I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.
I think we need to know at which point in their dealings with Jesus did these followers first 'believe him to be the son of "God"'. The implication from all the records we have is that this awareness only came with their meeting with the resurrected Jesus, suggesting that that prior to that, they were no different to all the other messianic followers of the day who had simply dispersed on the death of their chosen leaders. This also helps to put the 'the disciples stole the body' story under intense scrutiny.
-
I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.
I think we need to know at which point in their dealings with Jesus did these followers first 'believe him to be the son of "God"'. The implication from all the records we have is that this awareness only came with their meeting with the resurrected Jesus, suggesting that that prior to that, they were no different to all the other messianic followers of the day who had simply dispersed on the death of their chosen leaders. This also helps to put the 'the disciples stole the body' story under intense scrutiny.
Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".
-
I would like to know what is wrong with you. Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand
The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point. In fact, the two bear no resemblance. The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western. They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch. The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen. There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion, and especially no intent to die for what they were saying: they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced. I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom. That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.
There is nothing wrong with me, BA ... the fault is yours. You are unobservant and bitchy.
If you look again you will see I was answering Cyberman's post which contained both references, it was not me making the comparison.
I wish you would not trail around after me looking for imaginary things to complain about. You're a childish twit! :)
I comment only on your poor, unresearched, and flimsy posts. It is at least encouraging to see a more intellectual approach today!!
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
They'd all been hypnotised.
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
They'd all been hypnotised.
I reckon James is self-hypnotised!
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
They'd all been hypnotised.
I reckon James is self-hypnotised!
No, of course, a god did it.
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
They'd all been hypnotised.
I reckon James is self-hypnotised!
No, of course, a god did it.
No, he doesn't believe in gods! They are all in the imagination, rather like his "arguments!"
-
Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans. Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims? It doesn't add up.
They'd all been hypnotised.
I reckon James is self-hypnotised!
No, of course, a god did it.
No, he doesn't believe in gods! They are all in the imagination, rather like his "arguments!"
Oh, I though you were talking about Jesus' brother. My bad.
-
Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".
He taught that he was the Son of God - yes, but it is clear that the disciples didn't fully understand what that meant until they saw the resurrected Christ. How often have you been taught things that have taken you several months, even years, to fully understand?
-
They'd all been hypnotised.
By who? Obviously it wasn't Jesus who had hypnotised them since they seem to have deserted him in his final hours and gone into hiding.
-
Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".
He taught that he was the Son of God - yes, but it is clear that the disciples didn't fully understand what that meant until they saw the resurrected Christ. How often have you been taught things that have taken you several months, even years, to fully understand?
What's to "understand" about being the son of "God". I'm sure they understood it, even though they may have had doubts about the truth of it.
-
They'd all been hypnotised.
By who? Obviously it wasn't Jesus who had hypnotised them since they seem to have deserted him in his final hours and gone into hiding.
Dunno, by anyone around at the time who had the skills and was willing to. I didn't say it had to be Jesus but you haven't dismissed that with what you say, as one possibility is they could've been hypnotised to believe they had gone into hiding when they hadn't.
The thing here is, I currently understand that hypnotism is possible, but resurrections aren't, so on that basis hypnotism is a more plausible scenario no matter how far or how silly you take it. If you didn't agree that hypnotism was more plausible, then you'd be arguing for miracles every time hypnotism occurred.
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.
-
Look into my eyes! :D This discussion is absurd!
-
What would make men fly planes into buildings,
Hatred?
-
What would make men fly planes into buildings,
Hatred?
Now it's called "radicalisation!"
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.
That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.
Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.
That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.
Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
Gordon, do you tend to put your spectacles on when you write this stuff? Apparently they make you look more intelligent.
The scientific method does not cover many things e.g. philosophical naturalism. ''Clear identification'' sounds though precisely the kind of guff that a philosophical naturalist would resort to in an attempt to sound authoritative.
-
HOW? How can Christianity force anyone to comply? It is impossible.
Christianity is simply that which Christians apply in its name, so yes 'Christianity' can compel people to do or not do certain things, by enshrining their religious tenets in law.
True Christianity had nothing to do with people and worldly laws.
Want to see if you can see the true Christianity as opposed to that which is false... Clue; Jesus said - do as I do...
If you haven't tried Christianity how can you make such a foolish assertion? For you to assert they are the same shows ignorance and is even more foolish. It is folly in the worse case possible.
This still doesn't explain what reason there is to assume there is a difference. You believe, that's your prerogative. I have testimony from any number of people believing any number of allegations from global alien empires in pre-human history, through lizard-doppelgangers in the Royal Family on to the efficacy of extremely diluted water, and no reason to believe that any of them have any more justification than any other. The number of people that believe unevidenced assertions is not a reliable indicator of the reliability of the assertion.
But the Spirit and Truth are the only evidence.
Want to explain what about these two things you think is like the above,
Billions of people believe Muhammed has superseded Judaism and that Christianity is fundamentally misguided, but their sincerity is, no doubt, insufficient to convince you. Why should your equally sincere but equally unsupported belief convince me?
You WISH....LOL 1.6 billion actually but there are 1.09 billion Christians in the Roman Catholic Church alone... In fact the Christian religion has a 1/3rd of of the worlds population.
Where is Muhammed now, that's right he is dead. No miracles then.
You see Christians make choice and speaks from an informed stance and knowledge. It would be foolish for anyone to diss that without having experienced what they have or understanding what they have read.
Some Christians, perhaps, but not all. And whilst you can be informed about the Bible, it is a poor source of information itself.
The fact is that it is a living religion. Spirit and Truth.
Christians DO NOT stop the right to die, they do not stop gay marriage and they do not advocate walking away from the Lords (is that the 'house of Lords' or did you mean Laws? They have never advocated anyone walk away from schooling....
Really? So the Lords Spiritual, amongst others, didn't vote against the Assisted Dying bill? The Lords Spiritual didn't speak out against, and vote against, the progress of the amendments to marriage when they went through? They don't advocate people walk away from schooling, but they encourage the segregation and tribalism of religious schools.
Sounds like a personal beef. Are you saying no atheists or pagans agreed with those decisions. Well, you do not have a point do you.
Let me remind you...
Re: Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
It would be best if you did not try to derail or throw red herrings into the topic being discussed...
Do you have any idea if there's an alleged 'correct' order, because it all seems to have gone quiet on that front.
Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.
I have asked, repeatedly, for information to expand upon the original question. I have asked, repeatedly, for someone to explain why I should treat claims of gods differently to claims of leprechauns, and as yet no-one has tried.
Keep with the red herring assertions if you'd like, but I'd prefer an answer to the questions that might move the discussion on a little....
O.
[/quote]
You are kidding yourself. Try stay on topic and start a thread for other issues...
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.
That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.
Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.
-
I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.
But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.
-
Why do you think they are not independent? You said earlier that the resurrection accounts are independent, yet you say the empty tomb accounts are not. Why do think that, please?
Educate yourself Alan. Read about the synoptic problem.
You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.
As before, you and I disagree on this.
That doesn't make you any less wrong.
But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do. Your argument is circular.
The basis of your whole defence of the resurrection accounts is goddidit. If you believe in God and God can do anything then, of course, your resurrection fairy tales are possible but so is everything else, except rational discourse.
-
But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.
Agreed. Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.
-
But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.
Agreed. Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.
OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff, this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.
But you actually missed the point of my post. If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.
-
But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.
Agreed. Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.
OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff, this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.
But you actually missed the point of my post. If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.
But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.
-
But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.
Don't we? I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12. Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.
OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.
-
But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.
Don't we? I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12. Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.
OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.
Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.
In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.
-
I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.
But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.
Yes. They can all confirm to each other that a supernatural event has occurred. I meant that for anyone outside that circle, the multiple independent witnesses have to undergo an infallible lie detector in order for the event to be established.
The lie detector aspect which confirms the resurrection for the non-eyewitness is the change in the disciples, as recorded by non-eyewitnesses such as Luke (Acts) and whoever wrote Mark 16:9ff.
The apostles "collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives."
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html
-
Yes. They can all confirm to each other that a supernatural event has occurred. I meant that for anyone outside that circle, the multiple independent witnesses have to undergo an infallible lie detector in order for the event to be established.
The lie detector aspect which confirms the resurrection for the non-eyewitness is the change in the disciples, as recorded by non-eyewitnesses such as Luke (Acts) and whoever wrote Mark 16:9ff.
This doesn't seem like much of a test, Spud, since not only does it depend on other anecdotal claims it doesn't 'confirm the resurrection' at all since all it actually confirms is what some people thought.
The apostles "collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives."
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html
That people are prepared to suffer and die for support of their preferred cause isn't unknown, and although this approach may say something about their commitment or sincerity it says nothing about the truth or otherwise of their cause.
-
Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.
Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.
In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.
Oh yes, plenty of risks; death; persecution; rejection by their families and communities (and not just the Jewish authors); ... You seem to think that 'risk' is only on the side of the detractors.
Furthermore, since the written records aren't absolutely contemporary with the events, but are written records of existing oral materials, the legitimate suggestions that the stories were tampered with as they moved further in time from the events are equally legitimately mitigated by the likelihood of any eye-witnesses pointing out that said changes had occurred. When one remembers that all the alternative Gospels and Epistles, that so many like to refer to, date from the early 2nd century, how many of their authors are going to have had the oppportunity to have been eye-witnesses.
-
Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.
The burden of proof is with you guys, and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading.
Oh yes, plenty of risks; death; persecution; rejection by their families and communities (and not just the Jewish authors); ... You seem to think that 'risk' is only on the side of the detractors.
More special pleading.
Furthermore, since the written records aren't absolutely contemporary with the events, but are written records of existing oral materials, the legitimate suggestions that the stories were tampered with as they moved further in time from the events are equally legitimately mitigated by the likelihood of any eye-witnesses pointing out that said changes had occurred. When one remembers that all the alternative Gospels and Epistles, that so many like to refer to, date from the early 2nd century, how many of their authors are going to have had the oppportunity to have been eye-witnesses.
In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
God wasn't mentioned here, you've just changed the game by adding that in now.
Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event. The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's possible. So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
As far as I can tell, jeremyp was questioning it from the naturalistic background that we all start with, and not from a theistic one. Actually, it looks pretty obvious.
And you pretty much just said so yourself that it's impossible without god, so you agree.
If there is no God, it is impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. (Not G implies not R). That is what you have said here. Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a God. (R implies G - aka Modus Tollens).
I just said what you had said! I'm saying this is a position you agree with, not that it's mine. I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead. Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either. I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
-
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
Whereas I would suggest that this is possibly the most important question that has been posed on this thread.
I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Now, that is a meaningless question, without an answer to the one you posed above.
-
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
Whereas I would suggest that this is possibly the most important question that has been posed on this thread.
The answer is it isn't implausible. You just don't seem to understand why.
I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Now, that is a meaningless question, without an answer to the one you posed above.
The answer is the same for the same reason. For theists, you should believe it by definition.
-
...and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading.... More special pleading.
No more so than all your attempts to oppose the Christian arguments. After all, you restrict your arguments to a limited area of reality, thus pleading that that area is sacrosanct.
In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.
Actually, you're wrong. The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.
-
...and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading.... More special pleading.
No more so than all your attempts to oppose the Christian arguments. After all, you restrict your arguments to a limited area of reality, thus pleading that that area is sacrosanct.
I would say that limitation is at the behest of asking you to provide us with a means to broaden our scope. Are you going to help, because so far all you do is shy away from it?
In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.
Actually, you're wrong. The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.
Actually, he's absolutely right, and again, this is more of your obfuscation. Supernatural intervention is a conclusion you draw from the anecdotal claims, based on some methodology or other of gauging the likelihood of when supernatural intervention is the best explanation. If only you would elucidate what it is so we could all have a go...
-
The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.
Nope - we could conclude until the cows come home that the gospel writers may well have sincerely believed the claims of the oral accounts they were recording as text and also that they accurately recorded what these prior oral accounts claimed - but this isn't the same thing at all as concluding that these claims are factually true.
To claim that they are true you would need to employ a method that both disposed of the risks of mistakes or lies and also revealed the evidence that demonstrates supernatural intervention. The problem here is that you are stuck with all the attendant risks of ancient anecdotal claims of the fantastic as recorded by interested parties: you can choose accept these as being true on a personal basis of course, but you don't as yet have sufficient grounds to show the resurrection of Jesus as being historical fact.
So, since the burden if proof is yours, how about outlining a method that gets around all the problems of human artifice.
-
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
Human perception is both limited and over-rated - eye-witness accounts are far from reliable, and the weaknesses of both human sensory perception and mental processing are increasingly well-studied.
We are easy to deceive, especially when we have preconceptions to play on: if someone sets up a 'mock crucifiction', and all the appearances concur with the idea of a crucifiction, we're going to presume that a crucifiction is happening.
If, later on, despite how well I was observing the situation, the crucified guy walks back into the room I wouldn't presume magic or the suspension of the normal laws of physics, I'd put a recommendation on their Facebook page and walk away wondering how they'd done it.
No matter how convincing the original display is, I'd still put an unknown but rational explanation as more likely than an unknown 'supernatural' explanation: deception, no matter how difficult or convoluted, is still a more likely explanation than 'a god did it'.
O.
OK, as has been offered before, show us how it was done. I've got a cross, some nails and a spear. Are you up for it?
I have no idea IF it was done, let alone how. Once again, though, 'I don't know' does not inevitably lead to 'therefore a god did it'.
O.
-
True Christianity had nothing to do with people and worldly laws.
Want to see if you can see the true Christianity as opposed to that which is false... Clue; Jesus said - do as I do...
You're just one more voice in the multitude proclaiming an insight into what makes 'true' Christianity, but still none of you are offering a methodology by which the claims can be tested.
But the Spirit and Truth are the only evidence.
Show me 'spirit'. Define a test I can apply that results in evidence to make me think 'spirit' is something more than just a made-up concept to justify other made-up concepts that also don't have any evidentiary substantiation.
Want to explain what about these two things you think is like the above,
No, in exactly the same way I don't want to explain about unicorns, talking cheeses or the healing powers of homeopathy: because before I have any need to explain something you have to offer something more than an assertion that these things actually exist.
Billions of people believe Muhammed has superseded Judaism and that Christianity is fundamentally misguided, but their sincerity is, no doubt, insufficient to convince you. Why should your equally sincere but equally unsupported belief convince me?
You WISH....LOL 1.6 billion actually but there are 1.09 billion Christians in the Roman Catholic Church alone... In fact the Christian religion has a 1/3rd of of the worlds population. Where is Muhammed now, that's right he is dead. No miracles then.
By all the available evidence, if Jesus existed he's also dead. Thanks for making my point for me.
The fact is that it is a living religion. Spirit and Truth.
Gin and Tonic?
Sounds like a personal beef. Are you saying no atheists or pagans agreed with those decisions. Well, you do not have a point do you.
Damned straight it's a personal beef, I don't like people imposing limits on freedom because of blind prejudice, antiquated superstition or stupidity. I'm sure there probably are some atheists and pagans that objected to various of those decisions, and in other discussions I'd deal with the arguments they'd make: in this argument I'm referencing the people who take their religious sentiment and vote in accordance with it to ensure that their superstition restricts my life and the life of others.
Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.
Should I take that as a 'no, I have no idea about this alleged 'correct' order for the NT'?
I have asked, repeatedly, for information to expand upon the original question. I have asked, repeatedly, for someone to explain why I should treat claims of gods differently to claims of leprechauns, and as yet no-one has tried.
Keep with the red herring assertions if you'd like, but I'd prefer an answer to the questions that might move the discussion on a little....
And that's a 'No I have nothing to offer that's a reason to think believing in Jesus has any more justification than believing in leprechauns'.
O.
-
I can't see how it depends on that. My views might me ones you vehemently disagree with or they might be ones you like. In either case, how does my engagement in debate stop you from doing anything at all?
Whether your views are ones that I agree or disagree with isn't the point, it's whether you have any justification for them.
'I believe a leprechaun wants us all to stop gay people marrying' is patently nonsense, but when you replace 'a leprechaun' with 'god' suddenly it's supposed to be a valid justification for enshrining that baseless belief in law.
If you have reasoned arguments against a point then, by all means, raise them in the Houses of Parliament, ask for laws to be founded upon them.
Enshrining religious sentiment in law BECAUSE it is religious sentiment, however, is an unjust imposition.
Nice dodge though.
You probably shouldn't be assuming that just because you didn't understand the argument that it was a 'dodge' - you're supposed to be demonstrating charity, aren't you? Maybe I didn't read that bit right...
O.
-
What can't be explained today may well be explained in the future, with no input from any deity. What we take for granted today like electricity, microwaves, instant communication, with the other side of the world, for instance, would have seemed supernatural to the people living a few hundred years ago. Humans are the real gods, their ingenuity knows no bounds, imo.
-
Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.
They are also contradictory some contain some falsehoods and have been known to have been changed, so shouldn't be overly relied upon.
-
Agreed. Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.
OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff,
OK I thought it was obvious that I was asking for eye witness information of post resurrection meal, but it was my mistake not to allow you to move the goal posts in this instance, so we'll run with it.
Whose eye witness account is it in Luke 22:7 onwards? How have you authenticated it? In your answer, bear in mind that even Luke states he was not an eye witness at the beginning of his gospel.
this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.
Well, actually, Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the primary source of their accounts. If there was an eye witness to Luke's version, it was the probably the same eye witness to Mark and Matthew's version. Even if they were different, I still need you to answer who were they and how have you authenticated the account?
But you actually missed the point of my post. If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.
You have missed my point: there's no need to theorise about whose eye witness evidence corroborates whose unless you have an eye witness account and the only eye witness account you have of Jesus post resurrection from any first century source is that of Paul. And this is what Paul says of his sighting:
and last of all [Christ] appeared to me also
It's a little bit short on detail.
-
Agreed. Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.
OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff,
OK I thought it was obvious that I was asking for eye witness information of post resurrection meal, but it was my mistake not to allow you to move the goal posts in this instance, so we'll run with it.
My apologies: but why is an authenticated eye witness account of a meal so important? Is it because there is only one account of this whilst there are more accounts of other sorts of social interaction.
Whose eye witness account is it in Luke 22:7 onwards? How have you authenticated it? In your answer, bear in mind that even Luke states he was not an eye witness at the beginning of his gospel.
I addressed this and the subsequent question in my post #399
You have missed my point: there's no need to theorise about whose eye witness evidence corroborates whose unless you have an eye witness account and the only eye witness account you have of Jesus post resurrection from any first century source is that of Paul. And this is what Paul says of his sighting:
and last of all [Christ] appeared to me also
It's a little bit short on detail.
"last of all", jeremy. Paul lists a number of individuals Christ appeared to other than to him.
-
Why is my explanation implausible?
It's a dead man coming alive again. If that isn't implausible, what is?
Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?
This is a joke question, isn't it?
Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.
I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Your assumption of naturalism.
no, probability as it is taught as branch of science and used in the study of history in all schools and universities in this country, since as a branch of science it is methodological naturalistic, as is the study of history.
That is badly put. Because something is taught in schools and universities it does not thereby make it correct. Heck, theology is taught in schools and universities in this country and you seem to disagree with the correctness of what is being taught. As it happens, the use of probability theory, itself, does not require adherence or assumption of naturalism. You will have seen the equation I quoted in http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
Now, how you assign values to the right hand side of that equation is a matter of debate, but we can at least give rough figures, even if it is only "very low" or "very high".
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
Wot, as in not being able to tell whether someone has got nail wounds in their hands or have been stabbed or is eating with you or is talking with you?
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
Wot, as in not being able to tell whether someone has got nail wounds in their hands or have been stabbed or is eating with you or is talking with you?
As in being asked to watch a group of about six people intently and not spotting the man dressed as a gorilla joining in the group...
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html
Eye-witness testimony accuracy, consistency and reliability are horrendously over-estimated in general understanding.
O.
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
"Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup" - so not talking with them and eating with them?
"At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court." - so not a day or so later then?
Did you actually read the article?
-
Why do you think they are not independent? You said earlier that the resurrection accounts are independent, yet you say the empty tomb accounts are not. Why do think that, please?
Educate yourself Alan. Read about the synoptic problem.
Yes, I have done that and have looked into it in depth. I find it fascinating in a geeky sort of way. I think Mark Goodacre, in particular, makes some very interesting claims about its resolution.
Now, please answer why you think the empty tomb accounts are not independent when you think the resurection accounts are independent.
You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.
As before, you and I disagree on this.
That doesn't make you any less wrong.
I shall avoid getting into a "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" argument.
But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do. Your argument is circular.
It would be circular if I argued for that. Agreed.
The basis of your whole defence of the resurrection accounts is goddidit. If you believe in God and God can do anything then, of course, your resurrection fairy tales are possible but so is everything else, except rational discourse.
More accurately, you assumption of philosophical naturalism leads you to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead.
Following on from your point above, if I am arguing for the truth of Christianity as opposed to any other form of deism or theism (i.e. where the existence of God is already granted) then I don't need to demonstrate that God exists. The question then becomes whether it is probable that God would raise Jesus from the dead.
If, however, I am looking at the alleged resurrection of Jesus from the dead to demonstrate God's existence then, yes, I cannot assume God's existence as part of my argument. What I can say though is that, as atheists here tend to recognise, it seems impossible to demonstrate that God does not exist and therefore you and I should leave the possibility that he does exist open in our arguments.
-
But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.
Don't we? I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12. Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.
OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.
Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."
In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.
But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.
-
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."
These are anecdotal claims, Alan, made in an ancient book of imprecise provenance, that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts - you who say they are more than claims have the burden of proof here: I'm quite happy to stick at claims since I see no route from them to historical facts since you guys haven't provided a method that can be used to confirm supernatural agency.
But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.
Indeed - effective propaganda tends to have the effect of encouraging people to believe certain things: but where these no doubt sincere beliefs involve claims that a dead person was resurrected then their sincerity alone isn't really sufficient grounds to accept that their beliefs are true.
This is, again, where you need a method that can satisfactorily remove the problems of human artifice.
Update: Just to add, Alan, since I know you are fond of dictionary definitions, this one seems to support my use of 'claim' since the NT anecdotes about resurrection and Jesus being seen and interacted with fit this definition of 'claim' - 'State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof:'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim
-
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."[
In order for them to be facts you would need to have met the burden of proof, that they are facts. have you?
-
Yes. They can all confirm to each other that a supernatural event has occurred. I meant that for anyone outside that circle, the multiple independent witnesses have to undergo an infallible lie detector in order for the event to be established.
The lie detector aspect which confirms the resurrection for the non-eyewitness is the change in the disciples, as recorded by non-eyewitnesses such as Luke (Acts) and whoever wrote Mark 16:9ff.
This doesn't seem like much of a test, Spud, since not only does it depend on other anecdotal claims it doesn't 'confirm the resurrection' at all since all it actually confirms is what some people thought.
The apostles "collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives."
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html
That people are prepared to suffer and die for support of their preferred cause isn't unknown, and although this approach may say something about their commitment or sincerity it says nothing about the truth or otherwise of their cause.
Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,
"I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?
-
Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,
"I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?
No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.
To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.
-
Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,
"I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?
As NS has pointed out, Spud, this isn't a method since it is just another anecdotal claim and is, therefore, subject to all the limitations of anecdotal claims.
Moreover, since this claim is a supernatural one, you'll need a method that can show both clear evidence for the supernatural and is robust enough to counter the risks of people making mistakes or telling lies.
-
Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,
"I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.
from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?
No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.
To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.
OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.
I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.
-
OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties!
Experiments regarding the claimed resurrection aren't required Spud since enough is known about what happens to bodies after death to know that if said body was really dead for 2/3 then it would stay dead: so science already tells us what happens naturally, and this knowledge contradicts what Christians believe. Therefore, as things stand, it would be sensible to reject this resurrection claim as being false since it is a natural impossibility.
And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.
You mention some of the risks yourself here, Spud, in that the accounts of there being eye-witnesses who didn't makes mistakes or lie are no more than unsubstantiated claims: you may be 'content' with this, and if so then I'd say you were easily pleased.
I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.
Then you'll need a method that can be seen to remove the risks of mistakes and/or lies.
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.
Read my post again.
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
It is you who has to produce evidence for your fanciful assertions!
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.
Read my post again.
I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.
Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. :)
~TW~
-
Be careful with all that straw, TW.
Extra-terrestrial life hasn't featured in this thread, and has no relevance to what Len was actually saying.
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.
Read my post again.
I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.
Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. :)
~TW~
If you think anybody is searching for gods out there, you are dafter than I thought you were, which is saying something!
Have fun in your straw house! :)
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.
Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.
Can you produce any evidence for this.
~TW~
I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.
Read my post again.
I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.
Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. :)
~TW~
It is quite likely that somewhere out there is intelligent life which is more evolved than ours, and nothing to do with any deity, as I guess you were implying! ;D
-
My apologies: but why is an authenticated eye witness account of a meal so important?
I just chose "having a meal" as a random example of Jesus having social interactions after his resurrection. If you'd like to pick on another kind of interaction e.g. walking and talking with people or letting them touch his wounds, please feel free to do so.
Whose eye witness account is it in Luke 22:7 onwards? How have you authenticated it? In your answer, bear in mind that even Luke states he was not an eye witness at the beginning of his gospel.
I addressed this and the subsequent question in my post #399
No you didn't, you conceded that I am probably correct about Luke's account not being that of an eye witness. That's not addressing it, except to concede the point.
It seems that you are now claiming that Mark's description of the Last Supper is an eye witness account, so same question: whose eye witness account is it and how have you authenticated it?
You have missed my point: there's no need to theorise about whose eye witness evidence corroborates whose unless you have an eye witness account and the only eye witness account you have of Jesus post resurrection from any first century source is that of Paul. And this is what Paul says of his sighting:
and last of all [Christ] appeared to me also
It's a little bit short on detail.
"last of all", jeremy. Paul lists a number of individuals Christ appeared to other than to him.
Yes, but if Paul says person x saw the risen Jesus (where x is not Paul himself), it is by definition not an eye witness account.
-
No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.
To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.
OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.
I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.
No, I don't want a scientific method since that works on teh assumption of naturalism. I want a method that allows one to determine a superantural thing happened. Lots of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, indeed I was one of them. He didn't actually make it disappear though
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
Yesterday I saw a bus
Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft
Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky
-
Now, please answer why you think the empty tomb accounts are not independent when you think the resurection accounts are independent.
It's pretty obvious from at least one of my previous posts. The resolution of the synoptic problem is that, in all probability, Matthew and Luke copied Mark. However, Mark's gospel ends at the point where the women leave the garden i.e. it has no resurrection accounts in it. Matthew and Luke's resurrection accounts are, therefore, independent of Mark's by definition because he doesn't have any. I think it is a fair assumption they are independent of each other because they don't describe the same sightings.
As far as I am aware, John's account of the crucifixion and the empty tomb is not dependent on Mark's. Unfortunately, we don't know if it is independent of Mark's account because we do not know the original sources of either. John's resurrection accounts don't match with Luke or Matthew's so they are independent of each other.
So we have three authors, each describing a different set of resurrection sightings but, unfortunately, that means that they can't corroborate one another.
I shall avoid getting into a "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" argument.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that we know who the authors of the gospels are.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
You have an account of a man rising from the dead. So what?
By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do. Your argument is circular.
It would be circular if I argued for that. Agreed.
Well you do. That Jesus died and was resurrected is one of your Flakey Five.
More accurately, you assumption of philosophical naturalism leads you to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead.
You are Vlad and I claim my five pounds!
This has nothing to do with his philosophical naturalism bullshit.
You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning. Induction is inferring conclusions from observations. For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing. Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.
This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes. There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't. The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's possible.
Why do you make this claim? So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.
Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
OK, that's unfortunate for you then.
As far as I can tell, jeremyp was questioning it from the naturalistic background that we all start with, and not from a theistic one. Actually, it looks pretty obvious.
So what?
And you pretty much just said so yourself that it's impossible without god, so you agree.
If there is no God, it is impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. (Not G implies not R). That is what you have said here. Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a God. (R implies G - aka Modus Tollens).
I just said what you had said! I'm saying this is a position you agree with, not that it's mine.
OK, understood. I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead.
Agreed so far.Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.
I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them. I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?
-
What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.
I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.
Human perception is both limited and over-rated - eye-witness accounts are far from reliable, and the weaknesses of both human sensory perception and mental processing are increasingly well-studied.
We are easy to deceive, especially when we have preconceptions to play on: if someone sets up a 'mock crucifiction', and all the appearances concur with the idea of a crucifiction, we're going to presume that a crucifiction is happening.
If, later on, despite how well I was observing the situation, the crucified guy walks back into the room I wouldn't presume magic or the suspension of the normal laws of physics, I'd put a recommendation on their Facebook page and walk away wondering how they'd done it.
No matter how convincing the original display is, I'd still put an unknown but rational explanation as more likely than an unknown 'supernatural' explanation: deception, no matter how difficult or convoluted, is still a more likely explanation than 'a god did it'.
O.
OK, as has been offered before, show us how it was done. I've got a cross, some nails and a spear. Are you up for it?
I have no idea IF it was done, let alone how. Once again, though, 'I don't know' does not inevitably lead to 'therefore a god did it'.
O.
But you and others seem to be suggesting that it could have been a trick (that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?). If so then you must surely have some reason for so suggesting. If you don't know it is possible to pull off such a trick, why suggest it was a trick? You are claiming it was something you don't seem to really believe yourself.
Help me here.
-
We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.
How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.
This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?
Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?
Wot, as in not being able to tell whether someone has got nail wounds in their hands or have been stabbed or is eating with you or is talking with you?
As in being asked to watch a group of about six people intently and not spotting the man dressed as a gorilla joining in the group...
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html
Eye-witness testimony accuracy, consistency and reliability are horrendously over-estimated in general understanding.
O.
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
-
I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.
Super - so, since you are accepting of these accounts, on what basis have you excluded the possibility of lies: after all, that people lie is known human behaviour, so how have you accounted for this possibility?
-
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
You're doing it again, Alan: assuming anecdotal claims as facts!
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".
Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.
By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.
You, as a philosophical naturalist are,
::) I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.
those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.
As I've explained above, you are starting with it.
The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's naturally possible.
Why do you make this claim?
I've added 'naturally' in again if that makes it clearer.
So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.
Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.
Finicky? Yes and no. I was talking under the context of naturalism, so it's what I meant anyway, but there's no harm in you making it appear precise.
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
OK, that's unfortunate for you then.
<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.
I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead.
Agreed so far.Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.
I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.
I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...
I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?
Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:
Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.
-
But you and others seem to be suggesting that it could have been a trick (that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?). If so then you must surely have some reason for so suggesting.
I'm suggesting that it's a possibility, and that given that we have other instances of well-witnessed events of seemingly impossible things being perpetrated, that it's a more likely explanation than an actual resurrection.
If you don't know it is possible to pull off such a trick, why suggest it was a trick? You are claiming it was something you don't seem to really believe yourself.
You don't know it's possible to resurrect yourself after incarnating yourself in a sacrificial avatar, but you accept it as the best explanation... Essentially, all deceptions of this kind require a set-up to make you think you know what's going to happen, a distraction where the deception is either out of sight or out of your line of attention, and then a reveal.
Help me here.
You'd need to talk to professional magicians to get inside secrets like that, but I don't need to demonstrate exactly how - it's conceivable, easily, and it's a more likely explanation than actual resurrection.
That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.
O.
-
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.
Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.
Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.
People are not reliable witnesses at the best of times, in emotional times like a crucifixion, even less so. That's not a judgment on the purported integrity of the eye-witnesses, it's a well-validated finding about human perception and memory.
O.
-
quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.
-
No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.
To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.
OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.
I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.
No, I don't want a scientific method since that works on teh assumption of naturalism. I want a method that allows one to determine a superantural thing happened. Lots of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, indeed I was one of them. He didn't actually make it disappear though
Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?
-
If all the stories were falsehoods, the obvious question, then, is why? What was to be gained by such deception? All that happened was that they put themselves in mortal danger from the Jewish Authorities, and the Romans also; and to acute persecution from the Romans for years to come. Doesn't make sense.
-
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?
And whose spear wound shall I put my hand in?
-
quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.
In Luke's account, Jesus meets the disciples and then goes out to Bethany and ascends to heaven. In John's account, he doesn't do this. In fact he returns the next week and then appears in Galilee later.
Matthew's account of what happened in Galilee is totally different to John's.
These re not accounts of the same events just because they happened in the same places.
-
Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?
No
-
Why not, Gordon?
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
-
quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.
In Luke's account, Jesus meets the disciples and then goes out to Bethany and ascends to heaven. In John's account, he doesn't do this. In fact he returns the next week and then appears in Galilee later.
Matthew's account of what happened in Galilee is totally different to John's.
These re not accounts of the same events just because they happened in the same places.
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
-
No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.
To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.
OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.
I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.
No, I don't want a scientific method since that works on teh assumption of naturalism. I want a method that allows one to determine a superantural thing happened. Lots of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, indeed I was one of them. He didn't actually make it disappear though
Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?
Definitely not! ::)
-
Definitely not! ::)
Why not (though I'm not sure that it is a method if used on its own)?
-
Definitely not! ::)
Why not (though I'm not sure that it is a method if used on its own)?
Just because something is quoted in the Gospels doesn't give it any credibility, if there is no evidence to back it up, which there isn't for any of the fanciful stories.
-
Why not, Gordon?
While I'm not Gordon I would agree it isn't. How you go about investigating a specific claim is not a method - so for example if I am trying to determine the acidity of someting using litmus paper is not the method. The method there in terms of science would be continued experimentation looking at repeatable effects and based on the assumption of naturalistic cause and effect.
Trying to find out an explanation for something and enduing up with an I don't know does not allow the jump to it has to be non natural. As a method, your suggestion isn't even wrong.
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses touch (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
The account implies the wounds had healed, and Jesus was fit and healthy. So what I think you might be saying is that this would be evidence against it being Jesus, since after 2 days these wounds would be too painful to touch.
Maybe the person who appeared in the upper room was someone who looked and spoke like Jesus but had survived the same execution method months or even years earlier?
Again, I'm no addressing the propaganda issue, just whether the proofs detailed would be sufficient to convince rational people that Jesus was alive. So actually, the presence of wounds in the right places is not conclusive evidence in itself.
So we need more evidence. Enter John, once more. Chapter 21, and yes, this man can do miracles - he knows where the fish are. Same guy then,QED then?
-
Spud you want to believe the things attributed to Jesus are true, and if it floats your boat, fine. However it is reasonable for others to be sceptical as there is no evidence the gospel accounts are anymore than fanciful stories.
-
The account implies the wounds had healed, and Jesus was fit and healthy. So what I think you might be saying is that this would be evidence against it being Jesus, since after 2 days these wounds would be too painful to touch.
Maybe the person who appeared in the upper room was someone who looked and spoke like Jesus but had survived the same execution method months or even years earlier?
Again, I'm no addressing the propaganda issue, just whether the proofs detailed would be sufficient to convince rational people that Jesus was alive. So actually, the presence of wounds in the right places is not conclusive evidence in itself.
So we need more evidence. Enter John, once more. Chapter 21, and yes, this man can do miracles - he knows where the fish are. Same guy then,QED then?
I'm not saying that at all regarding wounds, or whether or not other people who survived attempted execution were in the vicinity - this seems like pointless speculation. To get evidence, Spud, you need a method that allows you to identify and describe what you are presenting as items of evidence, demonstrate that this evidence is unequivocal (as opposed to being either unsupported claims or stuff that you'd personally like to be true), and set these within a hypothesis that anyone could test.
What isn't evidence is yet more anecdotal NT claims, such as the John 21 you mention, since as things stand this (and the other NT resurrection accounts) is indistinguishable from fiction, so whatever method you use should be robust enough to counter the risks of mistakes/lies - and without this your QED is premature.
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true - you may think that on a personal basis, but you can't as yet claim it as being historical fact.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Eye witnesses are not reliable when it comes to fanciful claims. What about those who claimed to have witnessed the Angel of Mons?
-
Why not, Gordon?
Whose spear wound can I put my hand in as evidence of a supernatural event?
-
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't.
-
Eye witnesses are not reliable when it comes to fanciful claims. What about those who claimed to have witnessed the Angel of Mons?
And who decides what is a fanciful claim and what is not? Is there a legal defintion of the term? I suppose that people could equally say that scientific evidence that is so beloved by some here is not reliable when it comes to the theories and assumptions that much science is geared around. For instance, just about every scientific idea is a theory that is undergoing continual testing, yet in schools many of them are referred to in the same terms as the more consolidated 'Laws'.
-
Why not, Gordon?
Whose spear wound can I put my hand in as evidence of a supernatural event?
So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation? How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?
-
Eye witnesses are not reliable when it comes to fanciful claims. What about those who claimed to have witnessed the Angel of Mons?
And who decides what is a fanciful claim and what is not? Is there a legal defintion of the term? I suppose that people could equally say that scientific evidence that is so beloved by some here is not reliable when it comes to the theories and assumptions that much science is geared around. For instance, just about every scientific idea is a theory that is undergoing continual testing, yet in schools many of them are referred to in the same terms as the more consolidated 'Laws'.
They are called laws because not only are they theoretically testable, they are practically testable, and have been repeatedly tested and validated over time. That still doesn't make them 'proven', but it makes them valid in a broad and consistent enough set of circumstances that we can, in most situations, treat them as though they had been proven.
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. That doesn't definitively disprove it, but it's not sufficient evidence to justify extreme claims. That said, those claims are accepted by those that do not because they've reasoned their way to them, but as articles of faith.
O.
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
-
Why not, Gordon?
Whose spear wound can I put my hand in as evidence of a supernatural event?
So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?
No. Please read the thread to understand the context.
This is about a method for determining the truth of supernaturals events. Spud suggested that being able to put your hand in a spear wound (presumably of Jesus) ought to be evidence. I'm just pointing out that the method is worthless if we can't apply it.
How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?
Too often.
-
So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?
Now you are being silly.
How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?
I'd say any reports that meet this scenario would require additional corroboration, especially if what they claimed was highly unusual and the report is anecdotal, Uncorroborated anecdotal reports should be approached with extreme caution, and with a realisation that the more unusual the claim is then the greater the is need for corroboration and explanation given the risks of mistakes/lies.
-
So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?
Now you are being silly.
How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?
I'd say any reports that meet this scenario would require additional corroboration, especially if what they claimed was highly unusual and the report is anecdotal, Uncorroborated anecdotal reports should be approached with extreme caution, and with a realisation that the more unusual the claim is then the greater the is need for corroboration and explanation given the risks of mistakes/lies.
Spot on!
-
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."
These are anecdotal claims, Alan, made in an ancient book of imprecise provenance, that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts - you who say they are more than claims have the burden of proof here: I'm quite happy to stick at claims since I see no route from them to historical facts since you guys haven't provided a method that can be used to confirm supernatural agency.
But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.
Indeed - effective propaganda tends to have the effect of encouraging people to believe certain things: but where these no doubt sincere beliefs involve claims that a dead person was resurrected then their sincerity alone isn't really sufficient grounds to accept that their beliefs are true.
This is, again, where you need a method that can satisfactorily remove the problems of human artifice.
Update: Just to add, Alan, since I know you are fond of dictionary definitions, this one seems to support my use of 'claim' since the NT anecdotes about resurrection and Jesus being seen and interacted with fit this definition of 'claim' - 'State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof:'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim
Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous. Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel). Paul too, as well his own personal experience, checked things out with witnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection (Galatians 1:18, 19 which says he met with Peter and Jesus' formerly unbelieving half-brother, James. He was also in Jerusalem with the apostles and others on other occasions). The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle, Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness. You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?
You speak of things "that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts". Anyone can dispute anything, but so what? Disputed by whom? You? JeremyP? As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.
You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening. No-one will here. Jesus is recorded as predicting his death and resurrection and the witnesses were convinced Jesus was indeed alive again. As it is, it seems obvious to me (first as a science student but not, I would say, in thrall to science as the answer to everything and still thinking the same 36 years later), that the best explanation was that proposed by the bloke who was dead and then was alive, i.e. that God raised him from the dead.
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.
Cheers,
Alan
-
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."[
In order for them to be facts you would need to have met the burden of proof, that they are facts. have you?
That's actually irrelevant here. Gordon made a claim so the burden of proof is on him for that claim (and that claim alone).
-
All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.
So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.
It's that simple.
And your post is a human claim. Yes, there is evidence that a god has truly revealed himself. You may be of the opinion that it is insufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person, but let's stop this errant nonsense* that there is no evidence.
* a phrase I heard a while back. Thought you might like it for use in future sound bites.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
Yesterday I saw a bus
Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft
Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky
If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"
What about you?
-
Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous.
But there is no reason that any of the rest of us need to accept your straw man definition of "anecdote".
Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel).
But his resurrection accounts are still just anecdotes. He tells us he has researched things, but he doesn't tell us who his sources are. The problem is not necessarily that they are anecdotes, but that they are anecdotes about extraordinary events.
The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle
Would you care to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that conclusion?
Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness.
As above.
You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?
Yes I do doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get those facts right (we are talking mid to late second century here). I am pretty sure that, when you write down the reasoning for the attributions as I requested, it will be fairly obvious that it is really guesswork.
I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later
It's reasonable, but is it true given that executed criminals weren't usually afforded personal tombs.
and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus.
Them being convinced is not unreasonable, but that it happened would be quite extraordinary and you therefore need much better evidence than you have.
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda.
A religious cult that actively proselytises? What more motive do you want?
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
Yesterday I saw a bus
Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft
Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky
If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"
What about you?
I would be thinking "Since a body so colossal that it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system can't actually do the funky chicken without destroying the solar system and us included, the explanation has to lie at the point of reception, i.e. humans and their faulty perception."
What about you?
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
Yesterday I saw a bus
Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft
Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky
If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"
What about you?
I would be thinking "Since a body so colossal that it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system can't actually do the funky chicken without destroying the solar system and us included, the explanation has to lie at the point of reception, i.e. humans and their faulty perception."
What about you?
Ah, but if God, why not?
-
Now, please answer why you think the empty tomb accounts are not independent when you think the resurection accounts are independent.
It's pretty obvious from at least one of my previous posts.
It wasn't to me. That was why I was asking. I wasn't mucking you around (intentionally, at least). The resolution of the synoptic problem is that, in all probability, Matthew and Luke copied Mark.
Agreed. However, Mark's gospel ends at the point where the women leave the garden i.e. it has no resurrection accounts in it.
As in no resurrection sightings, yes, but it does have the angel telling the women that the reason there was no body in the tomb was because Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew and Luke's resurrection accounts are, therefore, independent of Mark's by definition because he doesn't have any. I think it is a fair assumption they are independent of each other because they don't describe the same sightings.
OK.
As far as I am aware, John's account of the crucifixion and the empty tomb is not dependent on Mark's. Unfortunately, we don't know if it is independent of Mark's account because we do not know the original sources of either. John's resurrection accounts don't match with Luke or Matthew's so they are independent of each other.
So we have three authors, each describing a different set of resurrection sightings but, unfortunately, that means that they can't corroborate one another.
So if they spoke about the same sightings they would be seen as not independent and thus not trustworthy, but if they don't speak about the same sightings we shouldn't trust them because they don't corroborate each other. Is that what you mean?
I shall avoid getting into a "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" argument.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that we know who the authors of the gospels are.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are. You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.
Etc.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
You have an account of a man rising from the dead. So what?
Why do you think the examples are comparable in any sensible manner?
By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do. Your argument is circular.
It would be circular if I argued for that. Agreed.
Well you do. That Jesus died and was resurrected is one of your Flakey Five.
Then let me clarify. I do not need to show that God exists to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. What I try to do is show that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that tomb was empty a couple of days later and that individuals and groups were convinced they met, spoke and sometimes ate with him afterwards. The best explanation of that is that he was indeed dead on the Friday and alive the Sunday onwards. What is the best explanation for that? That he was raised by God, as he had predicted. In order to be raised by God, God has to exist.
More accurately, you assumption of philosophical naturalism leads you to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead.
You are Vlad and I claim my five pounds!
This has nothing to do with his philosophical naturalism bullshit.
You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning. Induction is inferring conclusions from observations. For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing. Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.
This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes. There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.
Why?
-
I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.
Super - so, since you are accepting of these accounts, on what basis have you excluded the possibility of lies: after all, that people lie is known human behaviour, so how have you accounted for this possibility?
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Remind me what the motive would be for NT-writers to have lied? How would they have got away with it in?
-
Ah, but if God, why not?
You are a very naughty boy.
-
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Do you think you could explain why it is that, whenever this point arises (which it does often), you immediately leap to lie (i.e. conscious and deliberate deception) rather than sincerely believed misconception, which is to say, people genuinely believe something about which they are mistaken? It's always lie to which you have immediate recourse and not misapprehension. Why is that, exactly?
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.
Are there? Where?
-
You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."
These are anecdotal claims, Alan, made in an ancient book of imprecise provenance, that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts - you who say they are more than claims have the burden of proof here: I'm quite happy to stick at claims since I see no route from them to historical facts since you guys haven't provided a method that can be used to confirm supernatural agency.
But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.
Indeed - effective propaganda tends to have the effect of encouraging people to believe certain things: but where these no doubt sincere beliefs involve claims that a dead person was resurrected then their sincerity alone isn't really sufficient grounds to accept that their beliefs are true.
This is, again, where you need a method that can satisfactorily remove the problems of human artifice.
Update: Just to add, Alan, since I know you are fond of dictionary definitions, this one seems to support my use of 'claim' since the NT anecdotes about resurrection and Jesus being seen and interacted with fit this definition of 'claim' - 'State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof:'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim
Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous. Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel). Paul too, as well his own personal experience, checked things out with witnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection (Galatians 1:18, 19 which says he met with Peter and Jesus' formerly unbelieving half-brother, James. He was also in Jerusalem with the apostles and others on other occasions). The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle, Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness. You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?
You speak of things "that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts". Anyone can dispute anything, but so what? Disputed by whom? You? JeremyP? As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.
You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening. No-one will here. Jesus is recorded as predicting his death and resurrection and the witnesses were convinced Jesus was indeed alive again. As it is, it seems obvious to me (first as a science student but not, I would say, in thrall to science as the answer to everything and still thinking the same 36 years later), that the best explanation was that proposed by the bloke who was dead and then was alive, i.e. that God raised him from the dead.
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.
Cheers,
Alan
If God resurrected Jesus in order to show that death need not be the end, wouldn't you think he - being so much wiser and cleverer than any human being - would have had witnesses who could truthfully say they saw JC actually come back to life before their very eyes?
But no, he has him put in a cave with a largish stone placed in front ... then shows him days or weeks later talking to people.
Didn't he realise that it would be disputed, either his death or mistaken identity, afterwards?
It makes God look like a clumsy fool who messed up Big Time, not the God who knows and sees everything!
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.
Are there? Where?
In the Bible.
-
I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.
But how have you excluded the possibility that individuals/groups weren't telling the truth? After all, people make mistakes or lie, or are you saying that these individuals/groups were immune from these risks in some way? You then say that these accounts are 'generally accepted' facts: I say you are misrepresenting the robustness of these anecdotal claims and the term 'fact'.
You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening.
I'm not saying it happened: you are! I'm suggesting that it might not have happened at all since these anecdotal claims are insufficient as evidence of the supernatural.
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.
Easy - they wanted to keep their cause alive even if their main man was inconveniently dead. In that time and place a religious narrative would no doubt have more currency in a culture where religiosity was the norm.
-
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Remind me what the motive would be for NT-writers to have lied? How would they have got away with it in?
Not this old chesnut again - the whole point of propaganda is to convince the credulous and gullible, and no doubt many of these early Christians bought into the story (just as you do).
The NT writers may well have 'got away with it' since it seems that some of you still believe what they wrote, which is of course the type of thing they would write if they wanted to keep the Jesus myth going following his death.
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
In what way are they generally accepted facts?
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
In what way are they generally accepted facts?
In the way that billions generally accept them.
-
I know a Latin term for that ;)
-
I know a Latin term for that ;)
Me too!
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
In what way are they generally accepted facts?
In the way that billions generally accept them.
So a billion accept that Mohammed was the prophet, does that make it a fact?
-
For the hard of thinking, a fact either is or is not true. It is not made true by the number believing it. It is not falsified if no one believes it.
Eta: correction to that there are no untrue facts. There are only facts. They really don't give a fuck.
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
In what way are they generally accepted facts?
In the way that billions generally accept them.
So a billion accept that Mohammed was the prophet, does that make it a fact?
It does to their way of thinking, if not yours. And who is to say you are correct and they are not.
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people be'll sieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people be'll sieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
Uh!
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people beieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
Uh!
Edited for the weird predictive text.
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people beieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
Uh!
Edited for the weird predictive text.
Uh!
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people beieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
Uh!
Edited for the weird predictive text.
Uh!
So you are saying that you have no grasp of logic.
-
Because that then means by your logic that it is both a 'fact' that Mohammed is the prophet because people beieve it and that he is not the prophet because people do not believe it. Surely you can begin to grasp the logical problems in that?
Uh!
Edited for the weird predictive text.
Uh!
So you are saying that you have no grasp of logic.
Not really: more that I don't have a grasp of what you're trying to say.
-
Ok let"s start at the very beginning. A fact is something that is true. It is not influenced by the numbers believing it. There are many people that think Mohammed was the prophet. There are many people that think he was not. If you take that idea that you are punting that a fact is established by numbers believing then Mohammed being the prophet would be true. It would also because many people not believing that be not true.
An approach that leads to the possibility that something is both true and not true is flawed logic.
-
Ok let"s start at the very beginning. A fact is something that is true. It is not influenced by the numbers believing it. There are many people that think Mohammed was the prophet. There are many people that think he was not. If you take that idea that you are punting that a fact is established by numbers believing then Mohammed being the prophet would be true. It would also because many people not believing that be not true.
An approach that leads to the possibility that something is both true and not true is flawed logic.
Any opinion, then, is "flawed logic," since some may have a differing opinion on the same matter.
-
No, differing opinions are fine. As the saying goes, you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.
-
Ok let"s start at the very beginning. A fact is something that is true. It is not influenced by the numbers believing it. There are many people that think Mohammed was the prophet. There are many people that think he was not. If you take that idea that you are punting that a fact is established by numbers believing then Mohammed being the prophet would be true. It would also because many people not believing that be not true.
An approach that leads to the possibility that something is both true and not true is flawed logic.
Any opinion, then, is "flawed logic," since it may or may not be true.
Facts and opinions can, of course, coincide - but the aren't the same thing.
For example, by any established measure it is a fact that Glasgow is closer to Edinburgh than to Newcastle, and any opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the truth of this fact.
-
No, differing opinions are fine. As the saying goes, you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.
A fact is a fact, there to be proved or disproved, and sometimes neither is possible. So you accept your version, unless it is disproved.
-
Your version is opinion, not fact
-
Your version is opinion, not fact
Can you prove my opinion is just that, and not factual?
-
Your version is opinion, not fact
Can you prove my opinion is just that, and not factual?
Your opinion may be correct, and that you hold that opinion is a fact but it is irrelevant as to whether something you hold an opinion about is true
-
So if they spoke about the same sightings they would be seen as not independent and thus not trustworthy, but if they don't speak about the same sightings we shouldn't trust them because they don't corroborate each other. Is that what you mean?
"Independent" doesn't mean talking about different sightings, it means having different original sources. What you want is two or more people talking about the same event but either being eye witnesses or sourcing the material ultimately from different eye witnesses.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are.
No I am correct.
You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.
But you having an opinion does not mean you know who the authors are.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
You have an account of a man rising from the dead. So what?
Why do you think the examples are comparable in any sensible manner?
They both talk about fantastical events that violate the known laws of nature.
I do not need to show that God exists to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. What I try to do is show that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that tomb was empty a couple of days later and that individuals and groups were convinced they met, spoke and sometimes ate with him afterwards. The best explanation of that is that he was indeed dead on the Friday and alive the Sunday onwards. What is the best explanation for that? That he was raised by God, as he had predicted. In order to be raised by God, God has to exist.
But you fail to show that the events are as you claim. You show that we have stories describing some events, but you fail to show that the events they describe were real.
Furthermore, your assessment that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those stories rests entirely on the assumption that God exists. Without God and with the known laws of the Universe, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is vanishingly small.
Even furthermore, once you assume God exists and interferes with the World, all arguments based on probability (which is to say all arguments about the real Word) are rendered null and void.
You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning. Induction is inferring conclusions from observations. For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing. Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.
This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes. There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.
Why?
Perhaps an example would help. If I toss a fair coin ten times, what is the probability that it will come up heads each time? It's 1/1024.
Now suppose that I have a telekinetic ability so that I can nudge the coin imperceptibly as it is spinning in the air and make it land on whichever side I please. What is the probability of it coming up heads each time? Can you even answer the question?
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.
Are there? Where?
In the Bible.
Chapter and verse please.
-
Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!
The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.
Are there? Where?
In the Bible.
Chapter and verse please.
Sorry, I haven't the time right now: there's a Twenty20 match to follow.
-
In the way that billions generally accept them.
There are two billion Christians and five billion non Christians. According to you, we must conclude that they are not facts. They certainly aren't generally accepted, or there would be close to seven billion Christians.
-
Sorry, I haven't the time right now: there's a Twenty20 match to follow.
You need to be more subtle with your evasion. for the moment we'll just note that, when asked to show eye witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, you were unable to do so.
-
Sorry, I haven't the time right now: there's a Twenty20 match to follow.
You need to be more subtle with your evasion. for the moment we'll just note that, when asked to show eye witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, you were unable to do so.
Of course there are no eye-witness accounts of the actual Resurrection, as though it was some sort of Houdini magic act: "And now, ladies and gentlemen, before your very eyes..." There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ, which is where I'm coming from. I do not evade the issue when it comes to defending my belief in the Resurrection of Our Lord
-
There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ,
Chapter and verse please.
-
There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ,
Chapter and verse please.
You mean you don't know them? I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!
Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later—that is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8)
Hope that helps you. If you need any more help, do let me know.
-
You mean you don't know them? I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!
Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples. The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them.
Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience" - as if they want God to allow his only-begotten son to die on numerous occasions over a period of numerous centuries just to provide eyewitness evidence to evey human being who has lived since the once-for-all event , lives today and will live in the future.
They seem not to understand the concept of 'once for all'.
-
You mean you don't know them? I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!
Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples. The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them.
Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience" - as if they want God to allow his only-begotten son to die on numerous occasions over a period of numerous centuries just to provide eyewitness evidence to evey human being who has lived since the once-for-all event , lives today and will live in the future.
They seem not to understand the concept of 'once for all'.
That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything. Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.
-
That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything. Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.
No, I'd disagree. The reason there is little or no point discussing such things with the atheists here is that they start at a completely different starting point to the theists. These two starting points are so far apart, perhaps even on different intellectual planes, that it is very unlikely that 'he and thee' will ever manage to meet anywhere.
-
That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything. Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.
No, I'd disagree. The reason there is little or no point discussing such things with the atheists here is that they start at a completely different starting point to the theists. These two starting points are so far apart, perhaps even on different intellectual planes, that it is very unlikely that 'he and thee' will ever manage to meet anywhere.
Which, essentially, is what I'm saying.
-
Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later—that is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8)
Hope that helps you. If you need any more help, do let me know.
An eye witness account is one by an eye witness. You haven't listed any except Paul's own account which was jut "I saw him".
-
Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples.
Bingo!
The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".
The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them.
It's the word "may" that causes the problems."May" is not the same as "is".
-
Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later—that is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8)
Hope that helps you. If you need any more help, do let me know.
An eye witness account is one by an eye witness. You haven't listed any except Paul's own account which was jut "I saw him".
Are you sure? I think you've haven't read the verses I posted above. But then Hope predicted your response in 529
-
Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples.
Bingo!
The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".
The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them.
It's the word "may" that causes the problems."May" is not the same as "is".
Your point about hearsay is incorrect. OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:" There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
-
Your point about hearsay is incorrect. OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:" There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
You don't substantiate hearsay with more hearsay. :)
-
Your point about hearsay is incorrect.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:"
Let's see you substantiate the story of the road to Emmaus then.
-
There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
On what basis do you know that these reports are trustworthy?
-
The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".
Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue. A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay. From that same wikipedia article - Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is trying to prove not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable.
-
The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".
Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue. A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay. From that same wikipedia article - Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is trying to prove not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable.
So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?
Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
-
So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?
Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter, as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter. So I'm not sure that anything can be definitively stated, but the evidence would point towards that.
Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.
Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.
So, the goalpost-changing argument. Wondered when you'd use it.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Why single out Christians? There will be plenty of other religionists, and atheists, who believe all manner of things, and see ghosts.
-
So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?
Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter, as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter. So I'm not sure that anything can be definitively stated, but the evidence would point towards that.
Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.
Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.
So, the goalpost-changing argument. Wondered when you'd use it.
I see you use the term ' traditionally': very telling.
Not moving goalposts at all since I'm repeating what I've often said before, if you read my previous posts: which is that even if leaving aside the supernatural stuff it is quite reasonable to point out that the provenance of the NT accounts is unknown and that early Christians weren't immune from mistakes and lies.
Given these risks I'd say that to claim that the NT accounts are in any sense robust, especially in relation to the supernatural stuff, or that the motivations of early Christians were as pure as the driven snow to the extent that we implicitly trust what we read in the NT - is naive special pleading pure and simple.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
-
That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
So they claim - that doesn't mean their claim is true though.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
You can only have 100%!
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
You can only have 100%!
I'm currently charting a 124% year-on-year incident report level... just saying.
O.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Ah but they have the TRUTH!!!! ;D
I would never claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was being handed out. However, I can recognise it in others living with a highly intelligent husband and having children who take after him. I am in contact with lots of other very bright people too. It amuses me that one of the 'Christian' posters, who likes to tell me and others how thick we are, whilst apparently preening themselves on their intellectual acuity, doesn't come over as having too many functioning marbles if their posts are an indication of their intellect! ::)
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
You can only have 100%!
I'm currently charting a 124% year-on-year incident report level... just saying.
O.
You cannot do more than all of something. 100% is the most you can do.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
You can only have 100%!
Yeah but its magic init.
-
A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.
Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision? That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.
Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?
Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.
You can only have 100%!
Yeah but its magic init.
Uh?
-
The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".
Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue. A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay.
This is irrelevant. Dictation to a scribe was a common way of writing a letter in those days. Nobody disputes that such a letter was written by the person dictating rather than the scribe. None of the gospels were even dictated by eye witnesses.
-
Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter,
No. If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.
as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter.
As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.
Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.
But we don't call them the letters of the scribes.
This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe. How do you come to that conclusion?
-
Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter,
No. If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.
Not necessarily.
As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.
such as ...?
This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe. How do you come to that conclusion?
Several Pauline epistles end with the comment along the lines of 'see, I sign this with my own hand' indicating that the rest of the material hadn't been written by his own hand. We know that Luke accompanied Paul of several of his travels - and recorded some of them in Acts - so the suggestion that he also wrote at Paul's dictation isn't improbable. In fact, even the 'legit' epistles have diverse linguistic markers that strongly suggest the use of 'secretaries' or at least one, who might have been in a position to phrase ideas that Paul had, in their own words under his supervision.
-
No. If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.
Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. We know for a fact that Paul used a scribe and his letters are still attributed to him.
As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.
such as ...?
Mark 7:31 (NRSV) " Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis."
Sidon is in the opposite direction to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre.
Then look at Mark 5 where Gerasa is implied to be on the banks of the Sea of Galilee. It's actually miles away.
This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe. How do you come to that conclusion?
Several Pauline epistles end with the comment along the lines of 'see, I sign this with my own hand' indicating that the rest of the material hadn't been written by his own hand.
Nobody disputes that part. He had a scribe.
We know that Luke accompanied Paul of several of his travels - and recorded some of them in Acts - so the suggestion that he also wrote at Paul's dictation isn't improbable.
Ah, so it was a guess.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.
-
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
You're doing it again, Alan: assuming anecdotal claims as facts!
Nope.
-
Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience"
Good point, and I have been trying to show, before answering this question, that what is described is enough to convince an eyewitness him/herself that Jesus was alive again. And you gave a good answer to the question, ie that Jesus' death was once for all.
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".
Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.
That is not assuming/starting with naturalism, whether methodological or philosophical. All it says is that, whether there is a supernatural or not, it is not possible for a person dead for 2 days to come back to life via normal, physical processes. That is all. That does not make me a naturalist. A philosophical naturalist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical world and a methodological naturalist is someone who uses methods which would not show up a supernatural event even if one happened.
By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.
Nope, I am not claiming my "starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism." I was not a theist when I started looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I became a (Christian) theist as a result, but it was not my starting point.
You, as a philosophical naturalist are,
::) I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.
My apologies. How would you describe yourself, please?
those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.
As I've explained above, you are starting with it.
As explained above, I am not.
The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's naturally possible.
Why do you make this claim?
I've added 'naturally' in again if that makes it clearer.
We may be arguing at cross purposes. Hopefully my first paragraph above will help.
So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.
Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.
Finicky? Yes and no. I was talking under the context of naturalism, so it's what I meant anyway, but there's no harm in you making it appear precise.
Appear precise?
When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.
OK, that's unfortunate for you then.
<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.
Have done on a number of occasions on various threads. Getting a bit tired of repeating it. Look at what happened (death on a cross, burial in a known tomb, tomb found empty, individuals and groups on about a dozen occasions convinced they had met, spoken with and sometimes eaten with Jesus who was again right as ninepence. You know the score.
I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead.
Agreed so far.Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.
I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.
I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...
Why would anyone ever argue that "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead"?
I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?
Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:
Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?
Yes, if there is no God then there is no God to create and sustain the laws of nature.
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
I don't have that assumption.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.
If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.
There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
I don't have that assumption.
Yes you do. When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.
If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.
There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.
Agreed.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.
Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.
Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.
No, because when you change 'entities' to 'laws of physics' you change 'can't define' and 'can't explain' to 'haven't defined and 'can't explain yet'.
Science isn't, implicitly, beyond comprehension. Gods are.
O.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.
Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.
Is all this quibbling your way of telling me that you can't answer the question I posed? How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?
-
How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?
Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'. God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods.
-
How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?
Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'. God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods.
or at all!
-
How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?
Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'. God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods.
Exactly. Unfortunately, rational discourse about the real World is all about probabilities and likelihoods. All this discussion we are having about evidence, eye witnesses, best explanations etc becomes meaningless if a god exists that interferes with the World.
-
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.
Obviously, you will regard these as the only options since you are bound by the assumption that supranatural events can't occur - since they contravene the laws of nature as we know them.
If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.
Unfortunately, the equivalent can be said about scientific reportage, Gordon. Over my liftime, there have been plenty of such mistakes or lies within the scientific community. That doesn't invalidate science.
There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.
Which is why several of us have, over the months, worked our ways through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so.
-
Exactly. Unfortunately, rational discourse about the real World is all about probabilities and likelihoods. All this discussion we are having about evidence, eye witnesses, best explanations etc becomes meaningless if a god exists that interferes with the World.
Only if you regard the 'real World' as immune from the involvement of the supernatural creator. A concept that is, in itself, all-but impossible if it was created.
-
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.
Obviously, you will regard these as the only options since you are bound by the assumption that supranatural events can't occur - since they contravene the laws of nature as we know them.
So basically, if god, why not?
There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.
Which is why several of us have, over the months, worked our ways through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so.
And then, as if by magic, a complete abondonemt of "if god, why not" as you're claiming there are impossible things based on, what was it, ah yes, the assumption that supranatural events can't occur.
You really are funny.
-
Which is why several of us have, over the months, worked our ways through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so.
Why didn't you discount resurrection since it is essentially impossible?
-
Exactly. Unfortunately, rational discourse about the real World is all about probabilities and likelihoods. All this discussion we are having about evidence, eye witnesses, best explanations etc becomes meaningless if a god exists that interferes with the World.
Only if you regard the 'real World' as immune from the involvement of the supernatural creator. A concept that is, in itself, all-but impossible if it was created.
Nope you just don't get it do you. If there is a god that interferes then the World does not obey rules that can be analysed rationally. God can override any of the apparent rules we discover with a wave of her metaphorical fingers.
Have you also thought about the possibility that, if God can raise a man from the dead, she can easily manufacture a fictional account and make people die for it.
-
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.
Obviously, you will regard these as the only options since you are bound by the assumption that supranatural events can't occur - since they contravene the laws of nature as we know them.
If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.
Unfortunately, the equivalent can be said about scientific reportage, Gordon. Over my liftime, there have been plenty of such mistakes or lies within the scientific community. That doesn't invalidate science.
There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.
Which is why several of us have, over the months, worked our ways through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so.
1. I'm bound by the opinion that 'supranatural events can't occur' because there are no good reasons to think they do. There are, however, bad reasons to think this, and they seem to side-step other more everyday reasons like people making mistakes or making stuff up.
2. The thing about science is that should new evidence demand change, or if scientists make spurious claims, knowledge gets revised by any new evidence or by better science - so, and unlike religion, when it comes to science arguments from tradition or authority aren't set in tablets of stone and can be overturned.
3. You haven't worked your way 'through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so' since you have studiously avoided explaining how you have resolved the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts - you guys seem permanently stuck in the fallacies of arguments from authority and tradition.
-
1. ... There are, however, bad reasons to think this, ...
And those would be? Try not to list the half-dozen examples you've given in the past and had shown to be unlikely.
2. The thing about science is that should new evidence demand change, or if scientists make spurious claims, knowledge gets revised by any new evidence or by better science - so, and unlike religion, when it comes to science arguments from tradition or authority aren't set in tablets of stone and can be overturned.
As can religious beliefs and understandings, so ... ?
3. You haven't worked your way 'through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so' since you have studiously avoided explaining how you have resolved the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts - you guys seem permanently stuck in the fallacies of arguments from authority and tradition.
Oddly enough I provided a very detailed explanation of why several alternative explanations of the Gospels stories, iirc as posited by your good self, were either impossible or highly unlikely, only a couple of weeks ago which you then tried to negotiate your way around without a great deal of success.
-
I provided a very detailed explanation of why several alternative explanations of the Gospels stories, iirc as posited by your good self, were either impossible or highly unlikely
Why do you discount a "highly unlikely" explanation in favour of a totally incredible one?
-
Why do you discount a "highly unlikely" explanation in favour of a totally incredible one?
Why would I want to discount a perfectly acceptable explanation if reality is understood far more broadly than it seems to be by some here?
-
Reality has to be understood by some methodology which allows you to do so - that's the very thing you can't provide.
-
Why do you discount a "highly unlikely" explanation in favour of a totally incredible one?
Why would I want to discount a perfectly acceptable explanation if reality is understood far more broadly than it seems to be by some here?
How do you understand your broader reality without a means of assessing what things in it are true and what things are not?
This is the problem you have. If there is a god that interferes in the World, all possibilities are equally valid and you can't discount anything in the way you say you have.
-
How do you understand your broader reality without a means of assessing what things in it are true and what things are not?
And by what criteria, Hoppity, do you know that your alleged understanding of reality is broader than that of those others on here to which you referred earlier?
Clearly Jeremy and I are asking the same questions driving in the same direction, but no matter. It might slightly increase our chances of seeing you answer something for once.
-
Oddly enough I provided a very detailed explanation of why several alternative explanations of the Gospels stories, iirc as posited by your good self, were either impossible or highly unlikely, only a couple of weeks ago which you then tried to negotiate your way around without a great deal of success.
Oddly enough I think you must have me mixed up with someone else then since I haven't proposed 'several alternative explanations of the Gospels stories': I made it quite plain that I think the supernatural stuff in the NT accounts is superstitious nonsense from more credulous times that has been contrived into a fictional tale so as to promote the Jesus myth.
You still haven't explained why my main concern that these NT tales may be propaganda (which is the only alternative I've been consistently suggesting) is 'impossible or highly unlikely' while, ironically, you favour the actual impossible nonsense of dead people not staying dead and, seemingly, you must also think that early Christians were immune from ordinary human failings.
So please don't suggest that I've been offering various permutations that you've easily dismissed: I haven't, and you haven't even tried to address my question regarding how you have meaningfully excluded the possibility that all the supernatural stuff in the NT is propaganda for Jesus.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda,
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded. These have been shown many times here.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities, just as lies about Jesus' miracles would
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God. The resurrection is part of message of the Bible, that God will make a new creation, starting with the resurrection of the messiah. (This probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection.) And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
-
You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true
Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.
Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.
Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.
How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda,
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded. These have been shown many times here.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities, just as lies about Jesus' miracles would
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God. The resurrection is part of message of the Bible, that God will make a new creation, starting with the resurrection of the messiah. (This probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection.) And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
Exactly so!!
-
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded. These have been shown many times here.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities, just as lies about Jesus' miracles would
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God. The resurrection is part of message of the Bible, that God will make a new creation, starting with the resurrection of the messiah. (This probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection.) And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
A nice mix of fallacies there, Spud: starting with the Relativist one (its true for me), an argument from authority (the Bible contents that you accept as true), and on to confirmation bias (your 'probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection').
This stuff would be trivially easy to fabricate, Spud: it is exactly the type of stuff that someone living in a religious culture in antiquity would swallow: so don't kid yourself!
-
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded. These have been shown many times here.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities, just as lies about Jesus' miracles would
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God. The resurrection is part of message of the Bible, that God will make a new creation, starting with the resurrection of the messiah. (This probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection.) And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
A nice mix of fallacies there, Spud: starting with the Relativist one (its true for me), an argument from authority (the Bible contents that you accept as true), and on to confirmation bias (your 'probably means that one needs to believe in God in order to believe the resurrection').
This stuff would be trivially easy to fabricate, Spud: it is exactly the type of stuff that someone living in a religious culture in antiquity would swallow: so don't kid yourself!
Your account does not take into account the establishment of resurrection believing communities within 2 or 3 decades of the event.
The new testament account itself suggests that the resurrection was not easy to swallow so you are wrong there.
Rather than being easy to fabricate the resurrection account should more realistically have been scotched, quashed and trounced. It doesn't seem to have been.
Even today, yer, average antitheist tends to ignore the actual history and recasts history from a ''these things don't happen perspective'' even to the point where he thinks he is modern, more intelligent on these matters......he isn't. They knew people didn't rise from the dead back then and yet many came to the opinion that it had happened.
-
Your account does not take into account the establishment of resurrection believing communities within 2 or 3 decades of the event.
Back then, Vlad, in that place and culture, religiosity was the norm - so not surprising that there were a number of religious groups.
The new testament account itself suggests that the resurrection was not easy to swallow so you are wrong there.
Yet you do swallow it!
Rather than being easy to fabricate the resurrection account should more realistically have been scotched, quashed and trounced. It doesn't seem to have been.
That may be because the story only grew arms and legs much later - at the time of the death of Jesus these events may only have been of interest to his personal followers.
Even today, yer, average antitheist tends to ignore the actual history and recasts history from a ''these things don't happen perspective'' even to the point where he thinks he is modern, more intelligent on these matters......he isn't. They knew people didn't rise from the dead and yet many came to the opinion that it had happened.
Problem here though Vlad is that the alleged resurrection of Jesus isn't a historical fact: it is an anecdotal claim. At that time and place in history, and in that culture, a religious narrative probably had more currency than today.
It seems telling, to me anyway, that those here who actively promote the Jesus story as being historical fact seem unable to explain a method that would provide enough identifiable supernatural evidence to at least show how mistakes or lies can be excluded: this may be because, at base, they are (surprisingly to me) just as credulous as those early Christians were, and to the extent that they are deeply mired in fallacies such as those involving incredulity, ignorance, tradition and authority.
-
Your account does not take into account the establishment of resurrection believing communities within 2 or 3 decades of the event.
Back then, Vlad, in that place and culture, religiosity was the norm - so not surprising that there were a number of religious groups.
The new testament account itself suggests that the resurrection was not easy to swallow so you are wrong there.
Yet you do swallow it!
Rather than being easy to fabricate the resurrection account should more realistically have been scotched, quashed and trounced. It doesn't seem to have been.
That may be because the story only grew arms and legs much later - at the time of the death of Jesus these events may only have been of interest to his personal followers.
Even today, yer, average antitheist tends to ignore the actual history and recasts history from a ''these things don't happen perspective'' even to the point where he thinks he is modern, more intelligent on these matters......he isn't. They knew people didn't rise from the dead and yet many came to the opinion that it had happened.
Problem here though Vlad is that the alleged resurrection of Jesus isn't a historical fact: it is an anecdotal claim. At that time and place in history, and in that culture, a religious narrative probably had more currency than today.
It seems telling, to me anyway, that those here who actively promote the Jesus story as being historical fact seem unable to explain a method that would provide enough identifiable supernatural evidence to at least show how mistakes or lies can be excluded: this may be because, at base, they are (surprisingly to me) just as credulous as those early Christians were, and to the extent that they are deeply mired in fallacies such as those involving incredulity, ignorance, tradition and authority.
Religiousity is the norm in our world Gordon. You have equated religiosity with ready indeed preferential belief belief in the impossible. The NT epistles show this not to be the case.
You say that the resurrection isn't a historical fact. The fact is that just 20 or so years after we read about communities who believe it did. These communities were established. That is the historical fact your crowd hide.
Things were not as you present them.
Stop chucking the word shamanically about the place as if it were some kind of Brobat guaranteed to clean up all opposing views. The testimony is that some had seen and even felt Jesus. Paul challenges the doubter to interview up to 500. This is a material event. Your guff about wanting a supernatural methodology to establish this.
I agree that increasingly larger communities belief in the resurrection must have been bolstered. This would be the spiritual and religious encounter with Jesus. As far as I can see from the modern perspective even something like a resurrection would have faded and a dynamic on going experience would be needed to maintain the momentum.
Let's finally examine the religious roots the overwhelming opposition comes from other forms of jewish faith in which God does not come to earth incarnated, where Law and it's interpretation is the religious lynchpin and death is the end.
Your thesis that this time and place was fertile territory for a Christianity is off the mark somewhat.
-
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples
Can you show that the disciples were not fictional.
did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded.
Dead man coming alive again. Not possible, therefore lies or delusion must have been involved.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities
Why would the authorities discredit something they didn't even know about?
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God.
So your "evidence" really comes down to wishful thinking on your part.
And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
I believe it is correct to say it is easier to fabricate a story than bring a dead man back to life.
-
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples
Can you show that the disciples were not fictional.
did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded.
Dead man coming alive again. Not possible, therefore lies or delusion must have been involved.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities
Why would the authorities discredit something they didn't even know about?
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God.
So your "evidence" really comes down to wishful thinking on your part.
And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
I believe it is correct to say it is easier to fabricate a story than bring a dead man back to life.
Given that there were communities established within 20 or so years who record disciples etc. it seems a bit of a straw clutch to suppose there weren't itinerant people spreading a narrative.
-
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
-
There are plenty of indicators that the disciples
Can you show that the disciples were not fictional.
did not fabricate the resurrection, and were not deluded.
Dead man coming alive again. Not possible, therefore lies or delusion must have been involved.
For example, lies about the resurrection would have been discredited by the authorities
Why would the authorities discredit something they didn't even know about?
Ultimately though, it is the person ofJesus as presented in the Bible that convinces me that he rose. I know that his teaching is right, that I need a Saviour and that his death makes me right with God.
So your "evidence" really comes down to wishful thinking on your part.
And I believe it is incorrect to say that the gospel claims could easily be fabricated.
I believe it is correct to say it is easier to fabricate a story than bring a dead man back to life.
I don't think we can argue that strange stories are fabricated all the time but none achieve this kind of status in such a short time.
-
It seems telling, to me anyway, that those here who actively promote the Jesus story as being historical fact seem unable to explain a method that would provide enough identifiable supernatural evidence to at least show how mistakes or lies can be excluded: this may be because, at base, they are (surprisingly to me) just as credulous as those early Christians were, and to the extent that they are deeply mired in fallacies such as those involving incredulity, ignorance, tradition and authority.
Surprising to you perhaps, Gordon; not even slightly to me.
-
You say that the resurrection isn't a historical fact. The fact is that just 20 or so years after we read about communities who believe it did. These communities were established. That is the historical fact your crowd hide.
We read about them in Paul's letters. In one case he is arguing that the resurrection did happen with a Christian community. This suggests that the nature of the resurrection was not agreed on at the time.
Paul challenges the doubter to interview up to 500.
No he doesn't. He asserts that 500 people saw Jesus at one time. He asserts that some of them were still alive but he doesn't tells us who they are. How are you supposed to interview a person whose name and address you don't know.
This is a material event.
What? Paul writing a letter? Well we have the letter, so it must be. However the things he describes in it could be made up just like JK Rowling's stories.
Let's finally examine the religious roots the overwhelming opposition comes from other forms of jewish faith in which God does not come to earth incarnated, where Law and it's interpretation is the religious lynchpin and death is the end.
Your thesis that this time and place was fertile territory for a Christianity is off the mark somewhat.
Christianity didn't get much traction in Palestine. Check out the places to which Paul wrote his letters. So if you are saying that Judaism provided opposition to Christianity, I would agree and it appears to have been quite effective.
-
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
No Spud, nobody who has looked into the evidence in an honest way thinks the Gospels (except maybe Mark) were written before 70CE.
-
I don't think we can argue that strange stories are fabricated all the time but none achieve this kind of status in such a short time.
Would you like to explain the Mormon Church?
-
You say that the resurrection isn't a historical fact. The fact is that just 20 or so years after we read about communities who believe it did. These communities were established. That is the historical fact your crowd hide.
We read about them in Paul's letters. In one case he is arguing that the resurrection did happen with a Christian community. This suggests that the nature of the resurrection was not agreed on at the time.
Paul challenges the doubter to interview up to 500.
No he doesn't. He asserts that 500 people saw Jesus at one time. He asserts that some of them were still alive but he doesn't tells us who they are. How are you supposed to interview a person whose name and address you don't know.
This is a material event.
What? Paul writing a letter? Well we have the letter, so it must be. However the things he describes in it could be made up just like JK Rowling's stories.
Let's finally examine the religious roots the overwhelming opposition comes from other forms of jewish faith in which God does not come to earth incarnated, where Law and it's interpretation is the religious lynchpin and death is the end.
Your thesis that this time and place was fertile territory for a Christianity is off the mark somewhat.
Christianity didn't get much traction in Palestine. Check out the places to which Paul wrote his letters. So if you are saying that Judaism provided opposition to Christianity, I would agree and it appears to have been quite effective.
In terms of finding those who saw Jesus an invitation to go to where these people are still at seems reasonable to me as does Paul having an assumption without saying it that access to these people would be fairly easy.
In terms of Paul making it up what we get is a picture of a resurrection accepting/doubting/not accepting community to whom this was an issue who would in all likely hood be exposed to other lesser disciples or main disciples. I think we can say Paul is genuine in his belief.
Clearly not everybody saw the resurrection in the same way and the fact that there were debates tells us that it is probably at least not a singular invention from a singular author.....a palestinian JK Rowling if you please.
That Christianity doesn't gain much traction in Palestine contradicts Gordon's point that it was a fertile ground for it's beliefs....I would have thought. You spin it as a not much traction without really having a measure of how much traction it should have had. That is therefore mere polemic opinion on your part.
People were certainly less gullible than Gordon suggests.
-
I don't think we can argue that strange stories are fabricated all the time but none achieve this kind of status in such a short time.
Would you like to explain the Mormon Church?
Jesus' trip to America.
So far your response to the statement that strange stories are invented all the time has been to remind me that Christianity and Mormonism bucked the trend and achieve a certain status. That's two out of hundreds and hundreds.
The Mormon church is a Christian variant and so Mormonism I would of thought has not achieved the same status as orthodox Christianity.
-
In terms of finding those who saw Jesus an invitation to go to where these people are still at seems reasonable to me as does Paul having an assumption without saying it that access to these people would be fairly easy.
If I say 500 people saw me go over the Niagara Falls in a barrel, but I don't tell you who they are, would you think my clam credible or would you think I jut made up the number?
In terms of Paul making it up what we get is a picture of a resurrection accepting/doubting/not accepting community to whom this was an issue who would in all likely hood be exposed to other lesser disciples or main disciples. I think we can say Paul is genuine in his belief.
So you agree there isn't one canonical story of the resurrection at the time of Paul?
Clearly not everybody saw the resurrection in the same way and the fact that there were debates tells us that it is probably at least not a singular invention from a singular author.....
Or a real event.
That Christianity doesn't gain much traction in Palestine contradicts Gordon's point that it was a fertile ground for it's beliefs....I would have thought. You spin it as a not much traction without really having a measure of how much traction it should have had. That is therefore mere polemic opinion on your part.
I was arguing against your point which was that Christianity gained traction in spite of opposition. I just pointed out that it didn't gain much traction in the area where opposition was strongest.
People were certainly less gullible than Gordon suggests.
And yet some of them believed the nonsense about a dead man coming alive again.
-
So far your response to the statement that strange stories are invented all the time has been to remind me that Christianity and Mormonism bucked the trend and achieve a certain status. That's two out of hundreds and hundreds.
So you believe that Joseph Smith's and golden tablet story is true.
If not, you have to concede that false stories can gain momentum quickly and some people do fall for them.
[/quote]
-
So far your response to the statement that strange stories are invented all the time has been to remind me that Christianity and Mormonism bucked the trend and achieve a certain status. That's two out of hundreds and hundreds.
So you believe that Joseph Smith's and golden tablet story is true.
If not, you have to concede that false stories can gain momentum quickly and some people do fall for them.
[/quote]
Your contention that we must expect Paul to have immediately, in a letter supply names and addresses is straw clutching. Such an expectation would IMHO only make sense in an Autistic context and is at least a bit thin. For example the expectation is that many of the remaining witnesses would be in a church community, which would have been a tighter affair than now. After all Paul visited Churches and then hence presumably that would have been his starting point before going out into a community.
One has to look at the coming of Mormonism in the context that the Mormons are fresh in a new country where things were very different from whence they came. Mormonism satisfies a need for relevance and to link their geographical context to an established Orthodoxy. These people experienced the weird and disorienting everyday, Gold plates and angels sound a positive walk in the park when compared with that.
In all of Mormonism the miracle of the gold plates sounds the most dispensible part of it. Having the plates manifest and then they disappear sounds a bit thin but who knows.
What is more suspect and more fatal is the discrepancy between archaeology,ethnology and the Book of Mormon.
-
Vlad
Do you think that Joseph Smith was really visited by an angel named Moroni?
-
Vlad
Do you think that Joseph Smith was really visited by an angel named Moroni?
I don't.......ultimately because the so called message conveyed is not consistent with archaeology and ethnology nor orthodox theology....I thought I said that.
-
Your contention that we must expect Paul to have immediately, in a letter supply names and addresses is straw clutching.
No Vlad, we can see you are the one clutching at straws. Paul might as well have pulled that number out of his arse without any actual names.
many of the remaining witnesses would be in a church community, which would have been a tighter affair than now.
Paul was writing to the church in Corinth. In those days, Corinth was many days or weeks travel from Palestine. Paul could have written anything he liked pretty much without the danger of the Corinthians coming over to check.
One has to look at the coming of Mormonism in the context that the Mormons are fresh in a new country where things were very different from whence they came. Mormonism satisfies a need for relevance and to link their geographical context to an established Orthodoxy. These people experienced the weird and disorienting everyday, Gold plates and angels sound a positive walk in the park when compared with that.
In all of Mormonism the miracle of the gold plates sounds the most dispensible part of it. Having the plates manifest and then they disappear sounds a bit thin but who knows.
What is more suspect and more fatal is the discrepancy between archaeology,ethnology and the Book of Mormon.
The point of my example is that, in spite of all those objections you raise, the story has gained currency amongst Mormons. This means that your argument that the resurrection couldn't gain currency amongst Christians without being true is a busted flush.
-
Vlad
Do you think that Joseph Smith was really visited by an angel named Moroni?
I don't.......ultimately because the so called message conveyed is not consistent with archaeology and ethnology nor orthodox theology....I thought I said that.
So you are being selective about which religious claims you will accept: odd grounds too since I doubt archaeology from the early 19th century is relevant compared to the religion dating from antiquity that you clearly prefer: you seem to give greater credence to ancient middle-eastern sources of religious superstition as opposed to more recent American sources: a bit like preferring Tin-Tin comics over Batman comics.
You do seem to be rejecting one set of contrived religious dogma in favour of another set of contrived religious dogma because of your confirmation bias for the ancient middle-eastern variety without stopping to consider that your grounds for dismissing Mormonism (and I agree with your here since it is quite clearly nonsense) apply equally to Christianity.
-
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
Super - tons of time to concoct a story!
-
Your contention that we must expect Paul to have immediately, in a letter supply names and addresses is straw clutching.
No Vlad, we can see you are the one clutching at straws. Paul might as well have pulled that number out of his arse without any actual names.
many of the remaining witnesses would be in a church community, which would have been a tighter affair than now.
Paul was writing to the church in Corinth. In those days, Corinth was many days or weeks travel from Palestine. Paul could have written anything he liked pretty much without the danger of the Corinthians coming over to check.
One has to look at the coming of Mormonism in the context that the Mormons are fresh in a new country where things were very different from whence they came. Mormonism satisfies a need for relevance and to link their geographical context to an established Orthodoxy. These people experienced the weird and disorienting everyday, Gold plates and angels sound a positive walk in the park when compared with that.
In all of Mormonism the miracle of the gold plates sounds the most dispensible part of it. Having the plates manifest and then they disappear sounds a bit thin but who knows.
What is more suspect and more fatal is the discrepancy between archaeology,ethnology and the Book of Mormon.
The point of my example is that, in spite of all those objections you raise, the story has gained currency amongst Mormons. This means that your argument that the resurrection couldn't gain currency amongst Christians without being true is a busted flush.
But you are churning out the same argument. Your belief that these things never happen. As I have said intellectual assent in a story of resurrection is not the arrival at Christian faith. No more than I would imagine intellectual assent in the story of Moroni is the arrival at Mormon faith. Where Mormonism fails I think is that there is nothing in ''the Mormon bits'' of what is after all a Christian based variant which stands up historically, archeologically or ethnologically.
Your argument is at based merely the one for philosophical materialism. These things do not happen in your scheme of things, There is a prohibition.
The Christian's encounter with Christ makes the resurrection not only possible but if you think about it the only explanation for the encounter.
You have a bad methodology then. Picking a single aspect of a religion and then classifying it as the religion itself.
A test is to imagine a philosophical materialist withessing a resurrection or a miracle. What would the reaction be? One reaction would be to accept that resurrections can happen...but then faith in God is another thing since one could extend one's philosophical materialism to include resurrection.
-
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
Super - tons of time to concoct a story!
I would question your assertion that the NT is just another story. You seem to be saying that this is an obvious story easily concocted (for what reason I don't know). That of course is from a position of having the benefit of hindsight. What then is the story about, why is it affective?, why has it been globally affective? what is actually been concocted?. Your assertion Gord....over to you.
-
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
Super - tons of time to concoct a story!
I would question your assertion that the NT is just another story. You seem to be saying that this is an obvious story easily concocted (for what reason I don't know). That of course is from a position of having the benefit of hindsight. What then is the story about, why is it affective?, why has it been globally affective? what is actually been concocted?. Your assertion Gord....over to you.
Several things wrapped up in this, Vlad.
Let's deal with the survivor fallacy bit first: the main reason that Christianity survived isn't because its core supernatural tenets are true (they can't be, since they are impossible) but because of the social/political role Christianity has had in western Europe since the fall of the western bit of the Roman empire, from about the 5th century onwards, until recent times where in some areas, like here in the UK, its influence is waning along with its 'membership'.
The reason that the story was 'effective' is that it was at it strongest when religiosity was a cultural norm, and especially when it had an overt role in political power: there are tons of examples of the intrusive effect of Christianity in European history: the Crusades, the treatment of early scientists (Galileo et al), Henry VIII, the Conquistadors etc etc: thankfully though the influence of Christianity has weakened, and will continue to weaken no matter how much you guys jump up and down: the recent legislation on SSM is an example of the reduced influence of Christianity.
Looking back at it today it would seem to me that the core beliefs involving the divine may well have chimed when Christianity got going: religiosity was the norm then, so no doubt all the antiquated nonsense about prophets and miracles would find a ready audience, where those who were promoting the Jesus variant could easily have 'managed the message' to ensure that a certain type of stories were included: walking on water, healing the sick and, of course, not staying dead.
It was effective propaganda, since in more credulous times Christianity did survive and gain influence, but given the passage of time and the advances in understanding and knowledge since then I'm perplexed that some people still cling to what is no more than socially organised superstition that makes nonsensical claims.
-
Nope - the resurrection claims were post -hoc so the authorities at that point were simply executing someone (not an unusual occurrence back then). The claims of alleged miracles are exactly that; post-hoc claims written down years later, so how have you excluded the possibility that they are fictional lies to promote the myth of Jesus?
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
Super - tons of time to concoct a story!
I would question your assertion that the NT is just another story. You seem to be saying that this is an obvious story easily concocted (for what reason I don't know). That of course is from a position of having the benefit of hindsight. What then is the story about, why is it affective?, why has it been globally affective? what is actually been concocted?. Your assertion Gord....over to you.
Several things wrapped up in this, Vlad.
Let' deal with the survivor fallacy bit first: the main reason that Christianity survived isn't because its core supernatural tenets are true (they can't be, since they are impossible) but because of the social/political role Christianity has had in western Europe since the fall of the western bit of the Roman empire, from about the 5th century onwards, until recent times where in some areas, like here in the UK, its influence is waning along with its 'membership'.
The reason that the story was 'effective' is that it was at it strongest when religiosity was a cultural norm, and especially when it had an overt role in political power: there are tons of examples of the intrusive effect of Christianity in European history: the Crusades, the treatment of early scientists (Galileo et al), Henry VIII, the Conquistadors etc etc: thankfully though the influence of Christianity has weakened, and will continue to weaken no matter how much you guys jump up and down: the recent legislation on SSM is an example of the reduced influence of Christianity.
Looking back at it today it would seem to me that the core beliefs involving the divine may well have chimed when Christianity got going: religiosity was the norm then, so no doubt all the antiquated nonsense about prophets and miracles would find a ready audience, where those who were promoting the Jesus variant could easily have 'managed the message' to ensure that a certain type of stories were included: walking on water, healing the sick and, of course, not staying dead.
It was effective propaganda, since in more credulous times Christianity did survive and gain influence, but given the passage of time and the advances in understanding and knowledge since then I'm perplexed that some people still cling to what is no more than socially organised superstition that makes nonsensical claims.
Well, you seem to be in conflict with Jeremy P who reckons it didn't take off. If I were some sort of antitheists I might be claiming that as you are in conflict your position of disbelief is the incorrect one. But what I aim to do is to plough my own, hopefully correct, furrow,
,,,,,,,Back after the break.
-
But you are churning out the same argument. Your belief that these things never happen. As I have said intellectual assent in a story of resurrection is not the arrival at Christian faith. No more than I would imagine intellectual assent in the story of Moroni is the arrival at Mormon faith. Where Mormonism fails I think is that there is nothing in ''the Mormon bits'' of what is after all a Christian based variant which stands up historically, archeologically or ethnologically.
I am, at least consistent. I think both stories are fiction. Whereas you cut the resurrection story slack because people believed in it but you refuse to do the same for the Mormon story.
Your argument is at based merely the one for philosophical materialism. These things do not happen in your scheme of things, There is a prohibition.
Yawn.
Your answer to everything is "philosophic materialism". Give it up.
The Christian's encounter with Christ makes the resurrection not only possible but if you think about it the only explanation for the encounter.
What about the Mormon's encounter with Moroni? The Muslim's encounter with Allah?
You are guilty of confirmation bias.
You have a bad methodology then. Picking a single aspect of a religion and then classifying it as the religion itself.
You are guilty of not thinking about things critically. When you are out of your depth as you are now, you resort to big words to pretend you are clever, but you are not.
-
Well, you seem to be in conflict with Jeremy P who reckons it didn't take off. If I were some sort of antitheists I might be claiming that as you are in conflict your position of disbelief is the incorrect one. But what I aim to do is to plough my own, hopefully correct, furrow,
,,,,,,,Back after the break.
I'm happy to hear Jeremy's comments - from Jeremy.
I note your farming analogy - make sure you don't end up stuck deep in what farmers put on fields?
-
Well, you seem to be in conflict with Jeremy P who reckons it didn't take off. If I were some sort of antitheists I might be claiming that as you are in conflict your position of disbelief is the incorrect one. But what I aim to do is to plough my own, hopefully correct, furrow,
,,,,,,,Back after the break.
I'm happy to hear Jeremy's comments - from Jeremy.
I note your farming analogy - make sure you don't end up stuck deep in what farmers put on fields?
He was lying btw. I never said Christianity didn't take off, I said it didn't gain traction amongst the Jews in Palestine. He seems to have no idea of how the Christian Church was distributed and no concept of how far apart the various churches were with travel being as it was in those days.
-
Well, you seem to be in conflict with Jeremy P who reckons it didn't take off. If I were some sort of antitheists I might be claiming that as you are in conflict your position of disbelief is the incorrect one. But what I aim to do is to plough my own, hopefully correct, furrow,
,,,,,,,Back after the break.
I'm happy to hear Jeremy's comments - from Jeremy.
I note your farming analogy - make sure you don't end up stuck deep in what farmers put on fields?
He was lying btw. I never said Christianity didn't take off, I said it didn't gain traction amongst the Jews in Palestine. He seems to have no idea of how the Christian Church was distributed and no concept of how far apart the various churches were with travel being as it was in those days.
I know, Jeremy, since I read what you actually said earlier whereas Vlad seems to have read what he'd like you to have said.
-
I know, Jeremy, since I read what you actually said earlier whereas Vlad seems to have read what he'd like you to have said.
Ah yes. I too am familiar with that.
-
I know, Jeremy, since I read what you actually said earlier whereas Vlad seems to have read what he'd like you to have said.
Ah yes. I too am familiar with that.
Yes, I always thought you did the same!
-
Then you would, as ever, be in error.
-
Then you would, as ever, be in error.
Occasionally in error, of course. Any reasonable person will acknowledge that. Which is why you don't ever acknowledge it.
-
Anyway, we are 25 pages in. Nobody has yet answered the question "what is the correct order?"
-
There isn't a correct order, think how these letters started out being passed around the local churches, they would have read what they received, not sat there waiting for the whole 27 books.
-
Actually the gospels were all written before AD 70, as can be seen from the way they are written. The generation of people who knew Jesus was still around, and would have produced evidence to disprove the apostles' claims.
No Spud, nobody who has looked into the evidence in an honest way thinks the Gospels (except maybe Mark) were written before 70CE.
What do you think Matthew and Mark's purpose was in adding the phrase, 'let the reader understand' when talking about that event? The whole point of including the Olivet discourse in the gospel was to relay the information Jesus had given the disciples (about when to leave Jerusalem) to the rest of the church, so that they would be preserved.
-
The Christian's encounter with Christ makes the resurrection not only possible but if you think about it the only explanation for the encounter.
What about the Mormon's encounter with Moroni? The Muslim's encounter with Allah?
If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .
A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.
-
What do you think Matthew and Mark's purpose was in adding the phrase, 'let the reader understand' when talking about that event? The whole point of including the Olivet discourse in the gospel was to relay the information Jesus had given the disciples (about when to leave Jerusalem) to the rest of the church, so that they would be preserved.
What better way to convince credulous sheep than to include in your gospel a prophecy of something that has already happened and pretend the gospel was written before it happened.
-
If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .
A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.
You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them. That includes the resurrection.
-
If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .
A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.
You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them. That includes the resurrection.
But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.
Firstly, rather than being a strong selling point the epistles acknowledge that that part of the narrative is in fact problematic. So one problem for the propaganda argument is the embarrassment of this. The second problem is that Christianity at the time of the epistles does not fit the usual organisational profile...in other words Christianity at this time is more of a reverse extrapolated papal monolith. That was not the case at the time of the epistles.
The ''It's nonsense'' assertion is just stating what was understood then so rather than a selling point it is and was an embarrassment. The bald nonsense line is one that you end on without explaining why it is other than it goes against the doctrine of philosophical
materialism. If nothing else. IMHO this view has led many into historical revisionism and deliberate ignorance of what the accounts of the early Christian communities in the epistles are actually telling us...In short what they tell us is that an orthodox Christianity existed, that it is established within a couple of decades.
Why did Christianity survive?. To posit the Survivability of ideas is an offshoot of Darwinian thought but that is either wrong or People proposing it have come up with the wrong conclusion and Christianity has survived history because of it's fitness. Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?
-
If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .
A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.
'Encounter with God' doesn't mean something is a Christian variant. As you say, Muslims believe that they encounter God, but that doesn't mean that Islam (or Judaism, or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism for that matter) are Christian variants.
-
But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.
You're a broken record. It's as simple as this:
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
Why? Because Vlad is a Christian.
Firstly, rather than being a strong selling point the epistles acknowledge that that part of the narrative is in fact problematic.
Yeah, that's like adding "You'll never believe this but...."
So one problem for the propaganda argument is the embarrassment of this.
Not as embarrassing as "this is our Messiah, unfortunately he got executed and that's that".
Why did Christianity survive?. To posit the Survivability of ideas is an offshoot of Darwinian thought but that is either wrong or People proposing it have come up with the wrong conclusion and Christianity has survived history because of it's fitness.
Fitness is not a synonym of truth.
-
You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them. That includes the resurrection.
The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part. You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how). This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.
-
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
And the problem here is that the probability factor is attached to something that isn't even being claimed, causing the 'probability' argument to fall flat on its face.
-
You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist
Stop right there.
If you are going to pull God, we might as well give up any pretence of having a rational discussion right now. We have no methodology to determine whether statements involving God are true or not so we can't say whether the resurrection is probable in a scenario with God.
yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how).
Neither can you, but I, at least have a methodology that may one day lead me to the answers.
-
If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .
A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.
'Encounter with God' doesn't mean something is a Christian variant. As you say, Muslims believe that they encounter God, but that doesn't mean that Islam (or Judaism, or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism for that matter) are Christian variants.
1: I never say that Mormons nor Moslems are Christians although I am aware of one person who underwent a conversion to Christ while a member of a Mormon congregation.
He was immediately moved to separate from them. I merely used the term to outline that God is the focus of Mormonism, that Christ is presented as the revelation of God rather than the business with the angel and the gold plates. My own thought is that a Christianity which is a variant of Christianity isn't Christianity.
2: I don't believe I stated that Islam was a Christian variant so you are wrong there.
-
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
And the problem here is that the probability factor is attached to something that isn't even being claimed, causing the 'probability' argument to fall flat on its face.
What do you mean? You don't think Jesus was dead or you don't think he rose from the dead?
-
But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.
You're a broken record. It's as simple as this:
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?
I have told you the grounds on which I tend to disbelief of the tablet story (i.e. not one based on a blanket dismissal of the supernatural)
-
But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.
You're a broken record. It's as simple as this:
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?
The thing is that the probability that it is fiction is higher. We have experience of people making things up for all sorts of reasons, but you'll never see a dead man coming alive again.
I have told you the grounds on which I tend to disbelief of the tablet story (i.e. not one based on a blanket dismissal of the supernatural)
But these are grounds that are dependent on you already being a Christian. A Hindu or Muslim would use exactly analogous reasoning to dismiss the resurrection.
-
Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?
Don't be silly Vlad - it has yet to be shown that the portrayal of events and dialogue in the NT are historical facts to begin with: so I'm not 'substituting' anything. I'm simply querying the claim of historical fact in relation to the miracle bits, so I'm asking you who accept the NT as being historical fact to explain how you have excluded the possibility of mistakes or propaganda. All I seem to see though is a mix of confirmation bias, special pleading, fallacious arguments from authority/tradition - and your own woeful attempts at diversion.
I've made it quite clear that I think the claim of Jesus being resurrected is nonsense because it is naturally impossible, and that I think the NT claims are best seen as propaganda for Jesus since it is known that people are fallible (see my post 612). So, on what basis can you demonstrate (since you guys are making the claim) that you have; a) a method to provide evidence that is demonstrable confirmation of a non-natural event, and b) a means of eliminating the risks of mistakes lies in the NT accounts.
It seems to me that expressions of personal faith is as far as Christians can ever get here: which is fine for those who stop at 'its true for me'. However, for those who go further and claim that, say, the resurrection of Jesus in historical fact - so that is must be 'true for everyone' - then they fall flat on their faces in the absence of both a suitable method to evidence their claim and their inability to deal with the risks of human artifice.
-
But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.
You're a broken record. It's as simple as this:
Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad believes it
Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.
It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?
The thing is that the probability that it is fiction is higher. We have experience of people making things up for all sorts of reasons, but you'll never see a dead man coming alive again.
But alas and alack that leaves you using how you believe the universe works against the historical inference and you becoming both revisionist and historically ignorant.
Cop this....The percentage of a moment in history being repeated squiggly sign zero percent.
-
What do you mean? You don't think Jesus was dead or you don't think he rose from the dead?
Neither; you have (conveniently?) ignored the 3rd element of your own probability statement.
-
Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?
Don't be silly Vlad - it has yet to be shown that the portrayal of events and dialogue in the NT are historical facts to begin with: so I'm not 'substituting' anything.
Well I'm not saying that the impossibility angle isn't an angle because I have said it always has been. You are not substituting an alternative history Gordon? You said period and location was fertile ground because belief in this stuff was eminently believable.
That is an alternative view to the epistles where the problem of belief in a resurrection was well known. That is a substitute history which needs a historical research base.
One cannot say that a history is fiction without the suggestion that history went another way. There is no burden of proof with a history offered since to say that one account wasn't is to say that an alternative was and that is a positive assertion. You and Jeremy have to then provide an alternative history. If you don't then your objections remain philosophical.
-
But alas and alack that leaves you using how you believe the universe works against the historical inference and you becoming both revisionist and historically ignorant.
We have no means of understanding how the Universe works other than observing and testing it. We have asked the Christians here many times to provide us with a means of testing supernatural claims and so far there has been zero response.
You're saying that it is too hard for you to provide evidence of the resurrection and therefore I should believe you. Sorry, but no.
-
Well I'm not saying that the impossibility angle isn't an angle because I have said it always has been. You are not substituting an alternative history Gordon? You said period and location was fertile ground because belief in this stuff was eminently believable.
That is an alternative view to the epistles where the problem of belief in a resurrection was well known. That is a substitute history which needs a historical research base.
One cannot say that a history is fiction without the suggestion that history went another way. There is no burden of proof with a history offered since to say that one account wasn't is to say that an alternative was and that is a positive assertion. You and Jeremy have to then provide an alternative history. If you don't then your objections remain philosophical.
All I'm doing here is expressing my doubts by asking those making these claims to both explain what exactly it is they are claiming (e.g. by what method have they evidenced the supernatural) and how have they addressed the problems of human fallibility. So I'm not proposing and alternative version - so I'm simply expressing reasonable doubt regarding what is claimed by Christians.
So I'm asking those, like you, who support the claims to explain them but the combination your/their apparent inability to do so, along with the fantastical nature of the claims, but since all I've seen by way of replies is an amalgam of fallacies then I can only conclude that in relation to the divine claims made in the NT we are in the realms of superstition.
-
You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them. That includes the resurrection.
The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part. You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how). This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
O.
-
You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them. That includes the resurrection.
The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part. You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how). This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
O.
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
Is this the omnipresent, omnibenevolent God that so loves us that he wants each and every one of us to accept his benifecence and enter HeavenTM? Or one of the other depictions of a god?
O.
-
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate. Mind you, 'therefore gods' is equally inappropriate, as it implies that there is an alternative.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
Is this the omnipresent, omnibenevolent God that so loves us that he wants each and every one of us to accept his benifecence and enter HeavenTM? Or one of the other depictions of a god?
O.
Omnibenevolent? Is that an antitheist construct or what?
-
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate. Mind you, 'therefore gods' is equally inappropriate, as it implies that there is an alternative.
Begging the question (Why are we here? Why does the universe exist?) does not justify the assumption that there must be an answer, we just don't know what version of a god it is yet.
There is no reason to think there is a 'why', only hows. In that instance, not only is there an alternative for a god, you have to justify the reasoning behind the assumption of a god in the first place.
We have evidence for naturalistic cause and effect, we have no evidence for supernatural causes. We have no evidence of a purpose to existence or reality, there is no reason to presume 'why' is a valid question in the first place.
O.
-
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.
That then depends on what you propose as an explanation, since if what you propose can be rejected as being incoherent or is already know to be wrong then don't really have an explanation (although you may wrongly think you do).
-
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.
That then depends on what you propose as an explanation, since if what you propose can be rejected as being incoherent or is already known to be wrong then you don't really have an explanation at all (although you may wrongly think you do).
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
-
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations,
If you were being honest with yourself you would recognise that your beliefs can be wrong. Unless you have a way to verify your beliefs that is free of biases, the appropriate answer is still "I don't know".
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Just give us the details of the methodology you used then.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Please give details of how you excluded all naturalistic possibilities.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?
O.
-
OK, so let's say Vlad did eliminate all naturalistic possibilities (I don't believe that for a minute, but let's run with it), so we are left with supernatural possibilities.
Here are some supernatural possibilities:
Vlad had an encounter with God
The Evil Leprechaun beamed an imaginary encounter with God into Vlad's head.
Vlad had an encounter with Satan pretending to be God.
What methodology did Vlad use to eliminate the second two possibilities?
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?
O.
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
-
In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.
I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations,
If you were being honest with yourself you would recognise that your beliefs can be wrong.
Please provide a way that hasn't been exhausted.
-
OK, so let's say Vlad did eliminate all naturalistic possibilities (I don't believe that for a minute, but let's run with it), so we are left with supernatural possibilities.
Here are some supernatural possibilities:
Vlad had an encounter with God
The Evil Leprechaun beamed an imaginary encounter with God into Vlad's head.
Vlad had an encounter with Satan pretending to be God.
What methodology did Vlad use to eliminate the second two possibilities?
First of all in terms of Leprechauns. As your erstwhile board leader and great guru Bluehillside found out in his work with me, leprechauns only come close to God in his attributes if you make them less like Leprechauns and more like...,er, God. So on those grounds alone probability is more God than Leprechaun.
Secondly. The inability to tell evil from good is a parlous and dangerous state to be in as mentioned by Jesus in the New Testament.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?
O.
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
Nice try Vlad - but too obvious. Outrider asked you what method you used - a straight answer would be nice.
-
And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.
What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?
naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.
Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?
O.
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
Nice try Vlad - but too obvious. Outrider asked you what method you used - a straight answer would be nice.
And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.
I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.
-
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.
As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.
O.
-
And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.
I'm not proposing, you're implying, I'm asking for clarification.
I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.
Only if the methodology creates the phenomena - you are suggesting the phenomenon, we are asking for a methodology that would lead you to regard that phenomenon as leading to your conclusion.
O.
-
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.
As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.
O.
Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?
-
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.
As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.
O.
Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?
How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?
O.
-
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.
As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.
O.
Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?
How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?
O.
An hallucination of what?
In other words why are you categorising all encounters with God as hallucination?
-
So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?
I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.
As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.
O.
Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?
How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?
O.
An hallucination of what?
In other words why are you categorising all encounters with God as hallucination?
How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?
O.
-
And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.
I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.
Wriggle all you like Vlad - you are being asked about what method you have applied.
As far as I can see neither Outrider, Jeremy or I are making any claims about methods - we are simply doing the asking here in the (probably vain) hope that you will do the answering.
-
How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?
O.
He can't differentiate, so he can't answer your question.
-
And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.
I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.
Wriggle all you like Vlad - you are being asked about what method you have applied.
As far as I can see neither Outrider, Jeremy or I are making any claims about methods - we are simply doing the asking here in the (probably vain) hope that you will do the answering.
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.
I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.
That which can be assumed without evidenced can be dismissed on the same basis. You're making the claim 'supernatural' - you either have to justify it, or we can just dismiss it.
O.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.
I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.
That which can be assumed without evidenced can be dismissed on the same basis. You're making the claim 'supernatural' - you either have to justify it, or we can just dismiss it.
O.
Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism since the only methodology you know only establishes that something is material or physical and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.
-
Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.
Half-right. My justification is the continued validity of the predictions of various streams of evidence based investigation based upon the presumption of philosophical naturalism, yes.
The nonsense of them being 'conjured by a methodology' was dealt with rather simply above, which I note you failed to even try to address.
O.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.
I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.
But aren't you really saying I don't know but it can't be supernatural?
Where as you could also say I don't know but it's not natural.
Or does your philosophical naturalism preclude that?
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.
I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.
But aren't you really saying I don't know but it can't be supernatural?
Where as you could also say I don't know but it's not natural.
Or does your philosophical naturalism preclude that?
Philosophically, no, I'm saying that philosophical naturalism leads to provisional explanations which lead to further hypotheses that can be tested. Those tested hypotheses continue to validate both the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism and the individual theories resting upon it.
In practical terms, to an extent, yes I am. The possibility, in the face of the overwhelming mass of naturalistic explanation for phenomena, that there is something outside of that system which some people can detect and others can't is so extraordinary that it requires an extraordinary reason to accept it: as yet, I've seen nothing that qualifies as even coming close to that extraordinary evidence.
I try to be honest and ask people to provide it - as I did here - and as yet they've not managed to. When people ask me 'what evidence would you accept that shows god?' I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.
O.
-
I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.
O.
Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.
-
I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.
O.
Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.
Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence. I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence of anything else, and a methodology by which to reliably assess it.
O.
-
I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.
O.
Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.
Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence.
Really, What is that?
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
-
I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.
O.
Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.
Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence.
Really, What is that?
The body of scientific work that continues to reliably explain and predict, with increasing scope and accuracy, the ongoing activity we can detect in the universe.
O.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity. What I am saying was there existed an orthodox Christian community
which sincerely believed in the resurrection as a real event within a short time of the events described. Most of them would also have held the belief that this is by no means a normal occurrence. Whether there were other witnesses who witnessed it and did think this was a natural but rare occurrence we don't know.
I believe I am talking about natural explanations being exhausted with regard to my own Christian Experience. Objections to it being a real experience of God boil down to mere philosophy.
-
Please provide a way that hasn't been exhausted.
You tell us what ways you have tried and we'll tell you which ones haven't been exhausted, although I'm willing to be you have not tried any methods that rule out your subjective opinion.
-
OK, so let's say Vlad did eliminate all naturalistic possibilities (I don't believe that for a minute, but let's run with it), so we are left with supernatural possibilities.
Here are some supernatural possibilities:
Vlad had an encounter with God
The Evil Leprechaun beamed an imaginary encounter with God into Vlad's head.
Vlad had an encounter with Satan pretending to be God.
What methodology did Vlad use to eliminate the second two possibilities?
First of all in terms of Leprechauns. As your erstwhile board leader and great guru Bluehillside found out in his work with me, leprechauns only come close to God in his attributes if you make them less like Leprechauns and more like...,er, God.
The leprechaun doesn't have to have godlike attributes to be able to beam imaginary thoughts into your head.
Secondly. The inability to tell evil from good is a parlous and dangerous state to be in as mentioned by Jesus in the New Testament.
How is that relevant?
-
...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.
No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".
Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.
That is not assuming/starting with naturalism, whether methodological or philosophical. All it says is that, whether there is a supernatural or not, it is not possible for a person dead for 2 days to come back to life via normal, physical processes. That is all. That does not make me a naturalist. A philosophical naturalist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical world and a methodological naturalist is someone who uses methods which would not show up a supernatural event even if one happened.
Hang on, I didn't say that you assume naturalism. You've equated assuming with starting point here. I'm not. To assume naturalism here would be begging the question. I'm exactly saying that because you start with naturalism, that doesn't mean you've ruled in/out the existence of the supernatural, only that you start with not factoring it into the assessment. Perhaps it'd be better if I said a naturalisitc outlook rather than naturalism, to avoid the connotations of the latter.
The question here though is, why didn't you factor the supernatural in at the start?
By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.
Nope, I am not claiming my "starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism." I was not a theist when I started looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I became a (Christian) theist as a result, but it was not my starting point.
Which kinda makes my point that if you didn't start with theism/supernatural factored in, then you started with a naturlastic outlook in order to assess the likelihood.
You, as a philosophical naturalist are,
::) I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.
My apologies. How would you describe yourself, please?
Dunno really, you just need to understand here that I don't believe there is nothing beyond the physical (or more accurarely the natural) world.
those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.
As I've explained above, you are starting with it.
As explained above, I am not.
And I'll state again, I'm not claiming you have assumed it, only that you've started with it.
<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.
Have done on a number of occasions on various threads. Getting a bit tired of repeating it. Look at what happened (death on a cross, burial in a known tomb, tomb found empty, individuals and groups on about a dozen occasions convinced they had met, spoken with and sometimes eaten with Jesus who was again right as ninepence. You know the score.
Well firstly, as is oft repeated, I'm not looking at what happened, only what's claimed to have happened.
Anyway, I'm not seeing an method here that can be applied across the board to any and all supernatural claims. All you seem to be doing is starting with a naturalistic outlook, failing to find a possible naturalistic explanation that caters for all these (claimed) events, then hey presto god. Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.
The catch 22 here is that it's a paradox. If something deemed to be naturally impossible is the best explanation, then it means that all other naturalistic explanations for the events are impossible too, but you understand that to not be the case. Take propaganda as an example - you understand that it's not impossible yet pump for something impossible as being the better explanation. The conclusion is that any explanation you believe to be less plausible must also be naturally impossible, which would then mean from your standpoint that I must also conclude theism because I believe an explanation that is also naturally impossible.
So now we're on a level playing field, arguing over which god it is that exists. Using a naturalistic outlook is useless here because all the explanations are naturally impossible, and gods aren't deemed to be natural anyway. So how do we then assess the probability of which god it is that most likely to exists?
I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...
Why would anyone ever argue that "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead"?
The motivation of any indiviudal to argue this isn't the point. The point is that you believe a god's existence is required in order for Jesus to stay dead.
I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?
Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?
Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:
Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?
Yes, if there is no God then there is no God to create and sustain the laws of nature.
Well that contradicts your previous answer where you said you believe people could stay dead without a god. This is my whole point - I find this whole game of sifting through Christian theology (or any theology for that matter) with a fine toothed, trying to show supernatural internvetion as the best explanation for it, as futile, when you simultaneously believe that any diametrically opposed claims or explanations can just as easily bring you to conclude a god exists.
-
Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism since the only methodology you know only establishes that something is material or physical and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.
This is not on us, it is on you. You are being asked to show a methodology for distinguishing false supernatural claims from true ones. You don't seem to have an answer.
Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.
-
The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.
Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.
-
Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.
I don't think that's true, Jeremy. We can't just believe because we want to ... we believe because there is sufficient evidence to convince us.
Those of us who don't find sufficient evidence can't just believe, even though we might like to.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity.
No? I thought the key bit in Christianity was the belief that Jesus didn't stay dead.
What I am saying was there existed an orthodox Christian community which sincerely believed in the resurrection as a real event within a short time of the events described. Most of them would also have held the belief that this is by no means a normal occurrence. Whether there were other witnesses who witnessed it and did think this was a natural but rare occurrence we don't know.
No doubt they sincerely did - but could their sincere beliefs have been influenced by propaganda? This is a valid question since people then, as now, can make mistakes, can tell lies and be credulous.
I believe I am talking about natural explanations being exhausted with regard to my own Christian Experience. Objections to it being a real experience of God boil down to mere philosophy.
No doubt that is your belief, but of course what you believe and what you think you have experienced are functions of your biology - and people aren't infallible (even you, Vlad).
You're still stuck at 'true for me' though, which would be fine if you were keeping this to yourself, but here you are telling us all about it and implying that it is 'true for everyone'. Some of us are looking for more that sincerity, since however genuine your sincerity isn't confirmation that what you are sincere about is actually true if this includes claims that turn the natural order of things on its head - much more likely that you are wrong.
-
Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism since the only methodology you know only establishes that something is material or physical and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.
This is not on us, it is on you. You are being asked to show a methodology for distinguishing false supernatural claims from true ones. You don't seem to have an answer.
Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.
You obviously have not read, marked nor learnt the experiences as outlined by the writer of Isaiah, St Paul, Augustine, John Bunyan and the Christian Writer who wrote that the first grasp of the Good News is as Bad news for the ego. All of whose experiences chime with mine.
In the light of that what you class as obvious may be due to a lack of research and Ignosis.
However you asked me to compare supernatural claims. God is self evidently knowing, loving and able and good, if you cannot tell evil from good that is a bit of a bad sign since one's moral compass is up the spout. There is spiritual discernment or illumination provided by the ''Light''...and that is how it is done.
What did you make of my answer to your evil leprechaun projecting evil into one's brain?
-
The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.
Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.
Hot shit, man, that's word! I recall Alien, or maybe someone else, saying 'why not?' to a question of whether God could do X. But that 'why not?' is, as you say, intensely corrosive of all knowledge and description. There is nothing left, since there could be anything. No wonder some of the mystics ended up with the void.
-
The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.
Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.
How does it necessarily burn through experience?.....unless part of your definition of the supernatural is ''That which burns through experience''.
-
You obviously have not read, marked nor learnt the experiences as outlined by the writer of Isaiah, St Paul, Augustine, John Bunyan and the Christian Writer who wrote that the first grasp of the Good News is as Bad news for the ego. All of whose experiences chime with mine.
How are the writings of these people a methodology for determining the truth of supernatural events.
God is self evidently knowing, loving and able and good,
Your evidence for this is?
if you cannot tell evil from good that is a bit of a bad sign since one's moral compass is up the spout. There is spiritual discernment or illumination provided by the ''Light''...and that is how it is done.
This is not about telling good from evil, it is about telling true supernatural claims from false ones.
What did you make of my answer to your evil leprechaun projecting evil into one's brain?
What did you make of my rebuttal to that that answer?
-
It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.
If anything can be true, nothing is.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity.
No? I thought the key bit in Christianity was the belief that Jesus didn't stay dead.
yes that's key but then the NT has three accounts of resurrection. Jesus, Lazarus and the Boy raised by St Paul after falling out of the window. So resurrection per se not Christianity but resurrection of Jesus yes.
-
It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.
If anything can be true, nothing is.
That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.
-
There is a problem when those who believe in absolutes want to indulge in relativist games with those of us who have messed about in the dull brown muck of doubt for too long. You miss that everything dies in this muck, it grows flowers of no kind. Descartes's attempt to grow his weed of knowledge fails because not even thinking survives. The flowers are ghosts, the dreams of imps and demons that aresenseless, shapeless and mere wisps of forgotten utopias.
Vast schemes fall to the dust, the 'I' you treasure like Ozymandias, returning to the sand.
-
It presupposes nothing. It merely takes the claim that you make about possibility and applies it clear and pitilessly, rather than your own sentimental poultice, carefully avoiding that it destroys everything you want to hold dear. It is your claims that do this, not mine. Your argument that eats itself like a manic Ouroboros, swallowing, burning, disintegrating in its confused denial of its consequences.
-
It presupposes nothing. It merely takes the claim that you make about possibility and applies it clear and pitilessly, rather than your own sentimental poultice, carefully avoiding that it destroys everything you want to hold dear. It is your claims that do this, not mine. Your argument that eats itself like a manic Ouroboros, swallowing, burning, disintegrating in its confused denial of its consequences.
why should the non material be chaotic and not prone to logic or reason?
-
It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.
If anything can be true, nothing is.
That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.
No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.
-
And again Vlad, the point is not what I am claiming about the supernatural, it is what you are portraying it as that causes the issue. Please read posts rather than ignore.
-
It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.
If anything can be true, nothing is.
That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.
No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
Why should naturalism be arbitrarily be redefined as what is physical or material?
-
It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.
If anything can be true, nothing is.
That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.
No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
Why should naturalism be arbitrarily be redefined as what is physical or material?
I haven't said they should. Infact, I've even made the point to you before now that you're wrong to equate PM with PN.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil
No let's not. We are not trying to determine good and evil here, we are trying to determine the truth of supernatural claims.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her
There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her
There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.
Why?
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her
There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.
Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her
There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.
Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.
Don't see why?. You seem to have added the idea of omniemanation. I haven't
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
-
There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.
Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.
Don't see why?. You seem to have added the idea of omniemanation. I haven't
What, you don't believe that at a fundamental level, everything comes from a god? What are the things you believe exist that don't fundamentally come from god and also brought about the concept of "not good"?
-
yes that's key but then the NT has three accounts of resurrection. Jesus, Lazarus and the Boy raised by St Paul after falling out of the window. So resurrection per se not Christianity but resurrection of Jesus yes.
So, to ensure that I understand your point, you are saying that of three resurrection accounts in the NT only one, that of Jesus, is a certain historical fact? If so, in what way do the other two accounts differ to the extent that they aren't quite so certain?
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
-
But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
No reason why it shouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.
Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all, the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.
Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
You are JOKING! ::)
-
three resurrection accounts in the NT
Actually, there are six, not including all the saints that Matthew says were raised when Jesus was crucified.
There are also three resurrections in the OT.
http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=114
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
-
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic, he cannot have that either.
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.
-
Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
Why bother what would be the point?
Especially when no one has managed to produce any evidence that would verify the very questionable superstitious, magical and mythical elements we are expected to be taken in by.
ippy
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.
Complicated by the observation (pace C.S. Lewis) that, in NT terms, there are four types of 'love' to choose from: storge, philia, eros, and agape.
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
No idea, but I'm not the one using God's love as a basis for evidence of a supernatural claim.
If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.
Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.
If you are a materialist of the Shaker variety you then get your 'Loveometer'' labelled with the correct SI units.
-
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic, he cannot have that either.
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
-
I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.
But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?
What verifiable method of any love have we?
No idea, but I'm not the one using God's love as a basis for evidence of a supernatural claim.
If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.
That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.
-
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic, he cannot have that either.
If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.
-
Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic. The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true. For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.
You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic, he cannot have that either.
If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.
Just as soon as you explain which cause your god is an effect of, of course...
O.
-
If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.
Because that's just naturalism we don't understand, and by its 'nature' this stops free will.
-
If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.
That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.
Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true. It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
-
If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.
That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.
Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true. It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.
So god is evil then....show your working out.
-
So god is evil then....show your working out.
Why? I'm not arguing one way or another whether God is good or evil. I don't think there is a god. This little sub thread is about you showing us that various claims you have made about the supernatural are true.
-
If the deity in the Bible is a 'god of love', its idea of love is what many would term hate.
-
If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.
That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.
Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true. It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.
So god is evil then....show your working out.
The whole saga of evolution as a 'divine experiment' that has continually gone wrong - with mass extinction following mass extinction of life. The increase in apparent 'complexification' only resulting in increased capacity for perceived suffering. And we humans, chasing after transitory pleasures and some believing in phantom deities who have our best interests at heart... Maybe 'God' is still experimenting, and looking on with all the compassion of a demented scientist, just nudging genes and environmental scenarios only for the 'fun' of seeing what happens?
(And no, I don't think the above scenario is true, since I do not believe in any god - but it seems as plausible as the 'good God' scenario, if you insist on dragging the supernatural into the matter.)
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.
-
Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.
Not really. That there are material givers and receivers of love is a given; as is always the case, if you want to posit anything over and above that, the burden of proof is yours.
-
Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.
Not really. That there are material givers and receivers of love is a given; as is always the case, if you want to posit anything over and above that, the burden of proof is yours.
Prove love is being given. SI units please.
-
Prove love is being given. SI units please.
You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.
Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?
-
Prove love is being given. SI units please.
You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.
Non material or non existent?
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.
Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?
I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."
-
Prove love is being given. SI units please.
You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.
Non material or non existent?
The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such ;)
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.
Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?
I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."
Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.
-
Prove love is being given. SI units please.
You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.
Non material or non existent?
The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such ;)
Well sorry you had your chance to be philosophically even handed but your antitheistic optical swivelity prevented it.
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
No, we are treating it as true because you are asking that to be done, and providing no methodology. Once again, I'm just pointing out what follows from your position. If I have no methodology and descriptive expereince is a means to truthas you claim then that non expereince is also true.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
-
A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.
Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.
That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.
No, we are treating it as true because you are asking that to be done, and providing no methodology. Once again, I'm just pointing out what follows from your position. If I have no methodology and descriptive expereince is a means to truthas you claim then that non expereince is also true.
Yes you may not have experienced A and I have experienced A. Both can be true.
I have not experienced A therefore it doesn't exist is not valid since it's existence is not contingent on your experience of it.
My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A
Ah says the Non experiencer. You only think that you have because I have not experienced it.
................get what I'm saying?
-
My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A
The point is you need to shoe that the experience you have had is actually of A. You need to tell us how we can tell the difference between A and an imaginary version of A.So far, all you have done is prevaricate.
-
My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A
The point is you need to shoe that the experience you have had is actually of A. You need to tell us how we can tell the difference between A and an imaginary version of A.So far, all you have done is prevaricate.
So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?
What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A
1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?
If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. Of course I could try, delusion or illusion if I were you
-
So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?
What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A
1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?
No, the questions you must answer are:
1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.
where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.
-
If it quacks like a duck it is a duck.
Do you think so?
http://s46.radikal.ru/i111/0912/35/02a91712ffc3.jpg
-
So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?
What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A
1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?
No, the questions you must answer are:
1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.
where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.
Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.
-
No, the questions you must answer are:
1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.
where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.
Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.
I haven't added anything. My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago. You have spent the entire time since then dodging it.
-
The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such ;)
Is that so, Shaker. Is a political belief non-material or non-existent?
-
No, the questions you must answer are:
1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.
where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.
Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.
I haven't added anything. My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago. You have spent the entire time since then dodging it.
I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.
-
The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such ;)
Is that so, Shaker.
Yes.
Is a political belief non-material or non-existent?
Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.
-
I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.
Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing. Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.
-
Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.
This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded. So, which is it.
-
Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.
This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded. So, which is it.
I see you have no grasp of basic logic.
-
I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.
Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing. Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.
No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.
-
This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded.
Only if you didn't understand what I wrote, which is exceedingly likely.
ETA: As I see Jeremy has also just pointed out.
-
Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing. Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.
No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.
Nope. I am saying that, when challenged to come up with a methodology to differentiate between true supernatural events and false ones, you came up with nothing, nada, zip, nowt. I am not suggesting anything.
-
Sorry, don't accept that. If you don't accept it, move on. Simple as that And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.
And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?
Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.
To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.
And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all: I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects; and it has been a life-time study. For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.
Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.
You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.
Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
O.
There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes. And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly. If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away. Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!. And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes the religious can, because if they are in a position of authority they can block you.
Doctors for example.
If your doctor has religious objections to abortion for example, he can make it difficult for you.
Abortion probably is a bad example, but even if you have private health insurance it the request still has to come via your doctor.
Should he be awkward for some reason, he can make it difficult.
I have had a Catholic doctor in the past give me a lecture on God before now.
I'm not a Catholic, so don't expect to be lumbered with their beliefs.
Remember, they don't agree with birth control, for married couples and this particular doctor refused to proscribe the pill, his religion being the reason m hence the lecture on God.
Yes I could get the pill elsewhere, but your doctor is often the first port of call.
So I don't agree with you BA.
Religious people do abuse the power they have, sometimes.
[/quote]
You've had a catholic doctor lecture you?
I had half a dozen philosophical naturalists lecturing me!
-
Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing. Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.
No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.
Nope. I am saying that, when challenged to come up with a methodology to differentiate between true supernatural events and false ones, you came up with nothing, nada, zip, nowt. I am not suggesting anything.
No Jeremy that's not strictly true since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God. I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.
-
No Jeremy that's not strictly true
No it is strictly true.
since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God.
Which was all totally irrelevant since the challenge wasn't to show that leprechauns and Satan aren't God but to show that an experience you had, allegedly of God was not fabricated by leprechauns or Satan
I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.
No the problem is that you get fixated on certain big terms that you don't really understand and you hold them up like a fig leaf over the inadequacy of your argument, hoping nobody will notice.
-
No Jeremy that's not strictly true
No it is strictly true.
since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God.
Which was all totally irrelevant since the challenge wasn't to show that leprechauns and Satan aren't God but to show that an experience you had, allegedly of God was not fabricated by leprechauns or Satan
I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.
No the problem is that you get fixated on certain big terms that you don't really understand and you hold them up like a fig leaf over the inadequacy of your argument, hoping nobody will notice.
Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.
A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Then your apologists must be supremely naive: their confirmation bias is showing (perhaps wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles at the same time has that effect).
We've been through this with Alien, who has struggled with this too: nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded': no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth, as might be expected given that religiosity was probably the norm back then so that people were highly credulous of a religious narrative much more so than today.
Therefore, without a method to explain it, a resurrection can't be considered likely (e.g. it has no probability) but that people make mistakes and tell lies in support of causes is known human behaviour and as such is a clear possibility: and one that Christians here seem happy to avoid addressing.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Notice the 180 flip here.
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Notice the 180 flip here.
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
Yep - the only people they are kidding is, of course, themselves.
-
Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.
You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those. Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.
A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.
If you can eliminate the possibility of a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.
-
Notice the 180 flip here.
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
They are all the same. Spud, Hope, Vlad, Alan, they all do exactly the same thing.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Notice the 180 flip here.
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
Nicely put, Andy. Quite astonishing really, an ability to flip, as you say, like Tommy Cooper. Just like that, the supernatural is a small step. Staggering.
-
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural. So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.
Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
-
Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Likewise, your belief in it doesn't mean it really exists.
-
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural. So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.
Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Then do the decent thing and demonstrate it without descending into a morass of fallacies and an embarrassment of wishy-washy special pleading.
-
All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.
Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural. So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.
Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?
If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.
-
Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.
You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those. Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.
A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.
If you can eliminate the possibility of a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.
You mean you don't understand Ockhams Razor? Wikipedia is helpful.
You haven't owned changing the definitions to suit the argument.....
Is the Leprechaun short, Irish and at the end of a rainbow?
-
Then do the decent thing and demonstrate it without descending into a morass of fallacies and an embarrassment of wishy-washy special pleading.
Rich, coming from you, Gordon. Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
As I have said countless times over the years, we are discussing issues from so dramatically different perspectives that we might as well be speaking different languages. Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith. As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards. It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.
-
Rich, coming from you, Gordon. Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act.
As I have said countless times over the years, we are discussing issues from so dramatically different perspectives that we might as well be speaking different languages. Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith. As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards. It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.
Orwell called it doublethink.
-
How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?[/quote} It seems to me that it is the likes of your good self who are the ones trying to explain things away, Andy.
If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.
The more possible explanations are 'impossible' on the grounds that I and others have outlined on countless times. For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death. Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb. For the body to have been stolen, there would have had to be a fairly sizable fight between them and the grave 'robbers'. That would have got into the news because the Romans were always on the look-out for insurrectionists, and would have clamped down vigorously on any such event. Interestingly, there is no such clampdown in Judea at the time of Pilate recorded in any Roman documentation.
It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.
Perhaps you ought to look into it rather more carefully then, as many other people have - from an atheist/non-believer perspective - before coming to a faith.
-
Rich, coming from you, Gordon. Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else
Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently? What seems to be both on offer and stretched to fit philosophical materialism is the method. Let's be honest about The methodology. It merely demonstrates that something is matter/energy and that is it. It is a tool with apparati. The senses.
I disagree vehemently that minds conceptualising are necessary for mathematics since in someway it is being done by the cerebellum. Also we know there is maths which does not represent any physicality or material/energy or relationship.
What is that doing?
-
That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act.
Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate. Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them? As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.
Orwell called it doublethink.
And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.
-
Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently?
Cause to exist? No; but it's the conceptual toolkit by which we can reliably and accurately and consistently come to know what exists. Positing anything outside, above or beyond that is the whole problem which so many people here have tried to point out to absolutely no avail; you can dream up whatever the hell takes your passing fancy at any moment, but without a means of determining if it's real, a passing fancy it will for ever remain.
-
Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate. Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?
No. The reasoning is impeccable and the logic tighter than a duck's arsehole under water. What it indicates is that they have no rebuttal, nothing to offer.
To say nothing of the fact that a great many people with groundless beliefs are, to say the least, not overly keen on having the spotlight of reason shone upon them. Such beliefs tend to come apart at the joins faster than cheap toys on Christmas morning.
As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.
And yet the very point at issue here - yet again - is that you can't provide any reason whatever for anybody else to think how and why this so-called "limitation" even exists.
And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.
Orwell being correct all the time is not something I ever stated. In this case, however, he could scarcely have been more on the money.
-
Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently?
Cause to exist? No; but it's the conceptual toolkit by which we can reliably and accurately and consistently come to know what exists.
No, it is the method by which we study matter/energy.
You are claiming too much for it.
Hence my much ignored warning that you confuse methodological materialism with philosophical materialism....
Nice try at a hijack though.
-
There's a good reason why it's much ignored, Vlad: everybody is bored as fuck by it and wishes you could post something without wheeling it out yet again.
-
How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?
It seems to me that it is the likes of your good self who are the ones trying to explain things away, Andy.
That's nice.
If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.
The more possible explanations are 'impossible' on the grounds that I and others have outlined on countless times. For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death. Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb. For the body to have been stolen, there would have had to be a fairly sizable fight between them and the grave 'robbers'. That would have got into the news because the Romans were always on the look-out for insurrectionists, and would have clamped down vigorously on any such event. Interestingly, there is no such clampdown in Judea at the time of Pilate recorded in any Roman documentation.
The stupid - it burns. Do you not get it that I'm usng your own argument for the supernatural against you? I'm not remotely interested or arsed about the 'grounds' in which you deem the more possible to be impossible (a contradiction in terms as it is).
What I'm getting at here is that you are using the supernatural to make what we consider naturally impossible to be possible, whilst deeming what we'd consider naturally possible to be impossible, without realising that they are still possible if you claim the supernatural exists. You don't get to make a switch/flip or progress to a more plausible explanation - you put all explanations on a level playing field.
It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.
Perhaps you ought to look into it rather more carefully then, as many other people have - from an atheist/non-believer perspective - before coming to a faith.
It's a bit difficult to take your patronising seriously when you haven't got the foggiest idea of the point I'm making.
-
Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.
You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those. Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.
A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.
If you can eliminate the possibility of a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.
You mean you don't understand Ockhams Razor? Wikipedia is helpful.
You haven't owned changing the definitions to suit the argument.....
Is the Leprechaun short, Irish and at the end of a rainbow?
Evasion noted. You might as well stop. We both know you have nothing.
-
Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
Please don't accuse others of committing fallacies you don't understand.
We have asked you many times to provide your methodology for telling whether a supernatural phenomenon is true or false and you are still to come up with the goods.
Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith.
Yes there is. science has a methodology for testing its assertions. Faith clearly has none. The dichotomy is that with science we can be fairly confident of what is correct and what is not and if we are wrong, we figure it out eventually.
As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards. It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.
It's not just about being amazed, it's about trying to find out what is right. You are no further forward with knowing whose god is the right god than Thomas Aquinas was. Think about what science has taught us about the World in that time.
-
Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.
So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record". We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it. Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not". You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.
Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them? As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.
The only parameter we have set out is that the methodology be verifiable. We haven't asked you to put any other limits on it.
Orwell called it doublethink.
And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.
Yes but I think he was right on this occasion.
-
For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death.
We know from modern medical science that two day old corpses do not come back to life. You seem to be pointing out the mote and ignoring the plank, to borrow a biblical metaphor.
Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb.
Even William Lane Craig doesn't believe the story of the guards placed at the tomb. It's fiction.
-
So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record". We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it. Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not". You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.
Bravissimo.
-
Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.
So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record". We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it. Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not". You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.
Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them? As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.
The only parameter we have set out is that the methodology be verifiable. We haven't asked you to put any other limits on it.
Orwell called it doublethink.
And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.
Yes but I think he was right on this occasion.
Oh come on.
You asked how I could tell my experience was not really a Leprechaun capable of synthesising experience of God. Ockhams razor can be used on this as was definitional knowledge of what a leprechaun is.
How do we know we are not in the Matrix?
There is no material evidence for the divine. There is only material evidence for, er, material.......yet another example of elastic definition.
There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally. That that knowledge which is gained through experience is also in some way common is through agreement.
Finally if your going to insist on positivism for goodness sake live authentically as one....and see how far yer philosophy gets you.
Finally though no matter how good it would be to make Christians by argument alone, It's God who convinces. But I don't think certain attitudes help.
This is from Richard Lewontin
“We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-
There's a good reason why it's much ignored, Vlad: everybody is bored as fuck by it and wishes you could post something without wheeling it out yet again.
Argumentum ad tedium eh.
Come off it Shaker you were caught red handed trying to claim that we use methodological materialism to determine what can exist and what can't...
-
So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record". We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it. Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not". You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.
Bravissimo.
...and showing your philosophical materialism up for what it is, and your sloppy elastic definitions.
-
Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.
-
Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.
The level of your debate has tripled today Shaker......
3 x 0 =0
-
... whereas the number of times you've invoked philosophical materialism for absolutely no reason whatsoever is pretty well incalculable by now. What an achievement.
-
... whereas the number of times you've invoked philosophical materialism for absolutely no reason whatsoever is pretty well incalculable by now. What an achievement.
Says Mr P.Materialist
Head of philosophical materialism
Faculty of Philosophical materialism
University of Philosophical materialism
370 Philosophical materialist avenue
Philo...Delphia.
-
You asked how I could tell my experience was not really a Leprechaun capable of synthesising experience of God. Ockhams razor can be used on this as was definitional knowledge of what a leprechaun is.
How? Ockham's razor is only a tool that tells you which explanation is to be preferred if all else is equal. It doesn't claim to give you the right answer.
How do we know we are not in the Matrix?
We don't.
There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally.
That is not knowledge, it's belief. If it can't be verified it could be your imagination playing tricks.
Finally...
Finally...
Do you mean it this time?
This is from Richard Lewontin
Clearly not.
-
Message 774,
All the possible explanations become impossible,
Nay, they have been eliminated.
-
Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.
The level of your debate has tripled today Shaker......
3 x 0 =0
Hey look, a post in which Vlad didn't say "philosophical materialism". Do I win a prize?
-
Yes, the relief of not seeing Vlad write philosophical materialism for once. Enjoy it - it'll be brief.
-
Message 774,
All the possible explanations become impossible,
Nay, they have been eliminated.
If you assume God, you can't eliminate any explanation. A god that can raise a man from the dead can easily create a false memory in hundreds of people that they've seen Jesus alive.
-
Message 774,
All the possible explanations become impossible,
Nay, they have been eliminated.
And then ratified again by the supernatural. Ho hum.
-
You asked how I could tell my experience was not really a Leprechaun capable of synthesising experience of God. Ockhams razor can be used on this as was definitional knowledge of what a leprechaun is.
How? Ockham's razor is only a tool that tells you which explanation is to be preferred if all else is equal. It doesn't claim to give you the right answer.
How do we know we are not in the Matrix?
We don't.
There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally.
That is not knowledge, it's belief. If it can't be verified it could be your imagination playing tricks.
But it might not be. I think you are specially pleading psychological incompetence in a certain circumstance here Jezzer.
-
But it might not be.
Assuming that you like your knowledge of reality to be as accurate as possible (which I fully concede may well be a mistaken assumption), how do you propose to tell the difference?
-
But it might not be.
Assuming that you like your knowledge of reality to be as accurate as possible (which I fully concede may well be a mistaken assumption), how do you propose to tell the difference?
When it's proved to be my imagination would do it.....go ahead.
-
That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.
-
That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.
Nope, saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.
-
What Vlad is asking for is a method for falsifying supernatural claims...
-
That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.
Nope, saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.
Oh yea, jp said it could be, not that it is.
-
saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.
Yes it is. Good job nobody has said as much, to my knowledge at any rate. What Jeremy has quite rightly pointed out is that since you can't offer a methodology which verifies experiences, you can't tell the difference between what is imaginary and what isn't.
-
But it might not be.
Exactly, you don't know.
I think you are specially pleading psychological incompetence in a certain circumstance here Jezzer.
I'm not pleading anything. As Andy and Shaker have pointed out, all I've said is that we can't tell the difference between a real experience of God and an imaginary one.
-
Message 774,
All the possible explanations become impossible,
Nay, they have been eliminated.
which given a naturalistic methodology is impossible to do by definition. Adding an argument from ignorance as you do here just shows the problems with your position.
-
Rich, coming from you, Gordon. Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
Then feel free to detail these 'other categories' and explain the method, such as the range of qualifying criteria, that you used to do the categorisation as well as the outcome (e.g. how many categories you derived and what each category contains).
It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.
You can ask questions until the cows come home, Hope, but the important issue here is whether the questions you ask are valid: iirc some of the Christian here have said along the lines of that while science is useful for 'how' questions it isn't suited to 'why' questions, which presumes that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.
For example, the TofE and associated (and on-going) science informs about 'how' our (and other) species evolved so 'how' is a valid question. However, 'why do homo-sapiens exist' isn't a valid question until there is an underlying theory/method that can be used to turn this 'why' into a testable hypothesis that can be used to investigate the 'why' - faith statements along the lines of 'goddidit' don't qualify here since you guys haven't as yet provided a basis to test this.
-
Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist independently?
In theory it can exist independently
What seems to be both on offer and stretched to fit philosophical materialism is the method. Let's be honest about The methodology. It merely demonstrates that something is matter/energy and that is it. It is a tool with apparati. The senses.
Whereas, in the absence of a methodology, all we have is a claim that something might be possible, without even a capacity to check the viability of the claim, let alone the veracity.
I disagree vehemently that minds conceptualising are necessary for mathematics since in someway it is being done by the cerebellum.
A cricket ball in flight follows a mathematically calculable path, but even you I suspect would hesitate to suggest that it's capable of mathematics or conceptualising numbers.
Also we know there is maths which does not represent any physicality or material/energy or relationship.
What is that doing?
Playing with the concept of numbers, mainly.
O.
-
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Except that martyrs in other religions show that people must be willing to die for things that aren't true, we don't have multiple witnesses we have singular accounts alleging multiple witnesses and, most importantly, the lack of any current rock-solid explanation does not mean 'god did it'.
O.
-
So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?
What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A
A does not exist, B does not exist and you are suffering delusions...
A does not exist, B exists and is actively deceiving you...
A does not exist and your subconscious is actively deceiving you...
A does not exist and confirmation bias is leading you to mistake random events for a sensation of A...
1: How do we know A not to exist?
We don't know, but in the absence of evidence to support the claim we can dismiss it.
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
B can be deceptive. People are imperfect witnesses.
3: How is an experience an experience of A?
Who said that it was?
If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. Of course I could try, delusion or illusion if I were you
If it quacks like a duck it could be a duck, or a CGI simulation of a duck, or a model of a duck, or someone with a hearing impairment misunderstanding a goose, or a liar, or someone that really, really, really wants it to be a duck falling prey to confirmation bias in the presence of a swan, or someone stood close to a synthesiser loaded with the recording of a duck...
O.
-
No, the questions you must answer are:
1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.
where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.
Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.
I haven't added anything. My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago. You have spent the entire time since then dodging it.
I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.
#
Which hasn't offered any better alternative method for analysis of the claims of religious experience.
Philosophical materialism isn't perfect, but it has a significantly better track record than anything else, so far, and you're not offering an alternative.
O.
-
But it might not be.
Exactly, you don't know.
I think you are specially pleading psychological incompetence in a certain circumstance here Jezzer.
I'm not pleading anything. As Andy and Shaker have pointed out, all I've said is that we can't tell the difference between a real experience of God and an imaginary one.
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)
In which case your defence of leprechauns and trivialisation of God is as inexcusable as it obviously is.
-
Rich, coming from you, Gordon. Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.
Science has a proven track record and known, specified limitations. To apply it, within those established restrictions is not 'special pleading'. No-one is saying that only arguments that satisfy science are valid; what they are saying is that unless you can justify a methodology, or deduce from pure logic, you don't have a justification.
As I have said countless times over the years, we are discussing issues from so dramatically different perspectives that we might as well be speaking different languages. Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith.
Yes, but you aren't applying any sort of rigour or classification to your use of language. You make truth claims without any justification.
As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards. It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.
Questions which have to be justified in the first place. Begging the question 'why' presupposes that there is a valid answer, for which you then need to find an explanation.
O.
-
Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate. Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?
Or that none of you have an answer?
As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.
Unless you clarify the limitations on your methodology you don't have a methodology, you have assertion.
O.
-
What Vlad is asking for is a method for falsifying supernatural claims...
Damn, why didn't I think of doing that?!?
O.
-
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"TM and "Bad"TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities. What it can do is reduce the number of unconfirmed steps: an unsubstantiated leprechaun making up the story of the Bible requires fewer unsubstantiated leaps than all of the unsubstantiated events of the Bible.
I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic
No-one's suggesting that it needs to be. Quite the opposite, the fact that we're asking for a methodology implies that we're presuming some sort of rationale to it, or no methodology would be possible.
b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology
We've accepted that, which is why we want to see an alternative. We're not claiming philosophical naturalism has demonstrated the non-existence of a god, we're rejecting the claim in the absence of any justification.
c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)
So what we need is a methodology, you say? What a great idea - crack on.
O.
-
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"TM and "Bad"TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities. What it can do is reduce the number of unconfirmed steps: an unsubstantiated leprechaun making up the story of the Bible requires fewer unsubstantiated leaps than all of the unsubstantiated events of the Bible.
I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic
No-one's suggesting that it needs to be. Quite the opposite, the fact that we're asking for a methodology implies that we're presuming some sort of rationale to it, or no methodology would be possible.
b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology
We've accepted that, which is why we want to see an alternative. We're not claiming philosophical naturalism has demonstrated the non-existence of a god, we're rejecting the claim in the absence of any justification.
c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)
So what we need is a methodology, you say? What a great idea - crack on.
O.
I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .
Philosophical means of positing God are sound.
-
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"TM and "Bad"TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities.
I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here.
If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.
A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......Ah says the philosophical naturalist. You aren't allowed to say that because that would be using naturalistic thinking.
Why is that not allowed?
I don't know says the PN'er.
Once again science does not settle ontology.
-
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
Lots of maybes there. How do you turn maybe into fact?
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
Let's run with that then. I had an experience. Either it was God, a telepathic leprechaun, Satan or my own subconscious imagination. Ockham's razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. That tells me to choose my own subconscious imagination as the most probable answer.
-
I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology
No you don't but I am saying we do.
since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .
There's only one person who throws words about shamanically here. He changes his screen name frequently, but it often starts with a V.
Philosophical means of positing God are sound.
Great, give us a sound philosophical means of positing God.
-
Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.
Lots of maybes there. How do you turn maybe into fact?
I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.
Let's run with that then. I had an experience. Either it was God, a telepathic leprechaun, Satan or my own subconscious imagination. Ockham's razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. That tells me to choose my own subconscious imagination as the most probable answer.
yes but what prohibits God from being in your subconscious imagination, or the more powerful opponent of your evil leprechaun or Satan.
But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.
-
I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology
No you don't but I am saying we do.
since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .
There's only one person who throws words about shamanically here. He changes his screen name frequently, but it often starts with a V.
Philosophical means of positing God are sound.
Great, give us a sound philosophical means of positing God.
You are kidding me. Even Dawkins thinks the God hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, plantigna with his properly basic belief, fine tuning etc, etc, etc if you think those are not sound philosophically I think YOU need to get going.
-
But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.
I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested.
I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it.
-
You are kidding me. Even Dawkins thinks the God hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, plantigna with his properly basic belief, fine tuning etc, etc, etc if you think those are not sound philosophically I think YOU need to get going.
I asked you to give me one, not tell me about other people who you think may have given one.
-
But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.
I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested.
I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it.
Well, let's go the whole hog and say it's all the product of our imaginations.
-
But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.
I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested.
I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it.
Well, let's go the whole hog and say it's all the product of our imaginations.
So we end up with solipsism. Can we agree now that Ockham's razor as a tool for discerning truth is not completely adequate.
-
I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions.
I don't think, in the current environment of only one methodology have been put forward, that we are in danger of having any plurality of methodologies inundate us with problems.
You want to justify a claim, you need a methodology, otherwise you just have an assertion. Your methodology can be logical deduction, it can be philosophical enquiry. Of course, neither of those has been sufficient to justify the claim in the thousands of years that people have been trying - nor are they sufficient to disprove it, I'll acknowledge, but we don't put the onus on the sceptic to prove their position until sufficient grounds to accept it have been proffered.
Philosophical means of positing God are sound.
I think you missed the bit where they did philosophy - naturalistic or otherwise.
Philosophically, as scientifically, god is an hypothesis that awaits confirmation.
O.
-
I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions.
I don't think, in the current environment of only one methodology have been put forward, that we are in danger of having any plurality of methodologies inundate us with problems.
You want to justify a claim, you need a methodology, otherwise you just have an assertion. Your methodology can be logical deduction, it can be philosophical enquiry. Of course, neither of those has been sufficient to justify the claim in the thousands of years that people have been trying - nor are they sufficient to disprove it, I'll acknowledge, but we don't put the onus on the sceptic to prove their position until sufficient grounds to accept it have been proffered.
Philosophical means of positing God are sound.
I think you missed the bit where they did philosophy - naturalistic or otherwise.
Philosophically, as scientifically, god is an hypothesis that awaits confirmation.
O.
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy.
So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
-
I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.
I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.
A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......
More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)
Once again science does not settle ontology.
Then, once again, give us a methodology that does.
O.
-
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...
O.
-
I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.
I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.
A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......
More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)
Argumentum axe grindium.
-
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...
O.
So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.
-
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...
O.
So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.
No he's not saying that at all, he's asking you to define your terms and tell us what your methodology is.
-
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...
O.
So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.
No he's not saying that at all, he's asking you to define your terms and tell us what your methodology is.
Well if he isn't he should be.
Other than that, all you guys are asking for methodology. which incidently philosophical naturalism doesn't seem to have either.
I will venture that what we are seeing is the confusion between methodological materialism and philosophical naturalism attempted to be changed into a virtue.
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
-
I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.
I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.
A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......
More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)
Argumentum axe grindium.
Rather than your "argumentum ad ridiculum (except mine, because mine's different)" special pleading?
O.
-
Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.
I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...
O.
So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.
I'm saying that if you have a methodology, then conceivably your claims about gods could have a status equivalent to an hypothesis - in the absence of any explanation of a methodology, what you have is an assertion.
O.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Presume that cause-to-effect is consistent.
Hypothesise on a given effect's cause. Simulate situation in which changes in causal mechanism can either be identified or controlled.
Post the results on the internet you've built on the findings of decades of that methodology for others to review looking for possible sources of error.
Validate or refute the hypothesis based on the outcome of the simulation.
Repeat.
Your turn.
O.
-
Other than that, all you guys are asking for methodology. which incidently philosophical naturalism doesn't seem to have either.
I will venture that what we are seeing is the confusion between methodological materialism and philosophical naturalism attempted to be changed into a virtue.
No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Why? We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world. When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy.
See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?
-
Other than that, all you guys are asking for methodology. which incidently philosophical naturalism doesn't seem to have either.
I will venture that what we are seeing is the confusion between methodological materialism and philosophical naturalism attempted to be changed into a virtue.
No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Why? We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world. When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy.
See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Aha. The broken record trick. Time to draw a close over this discussion. It's clear you have nothing.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Aha. The broken record trick. Time to draw a close over this discussion. It's clear you have nothing.
That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Aha. The broken record trick. Time to draw a close over this discussion. It's clear you have nothing.
That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.
O.
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Aha. The broken record trick. Time to draw a close over this discussion. It's clear you have nothing.
That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.
O.
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
-
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.
-
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.
you said that as if it were a good thing.
You are conflating different issues. I have a problem with a methodology for the supernatural, they have a problem with a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
The lack of a methodology for supernaturalism does not absolve philosophical naturalism from having to have one lest it have the same status as ontological dualism or supernaturalism.
So given that....what is the methodology for philosophical naturalism?
-
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.
you said that as if it were a good thing.
You are conflating different issues. I have a problem with a methodology for the supernatural
Yes, but this is regarding a method to gauge the likelihood of supernatural claims, not supernaturalism.
they have a problem with a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
Yes, but not for a method to gauge the likelihood of naturalistic claims.
The lack of a methodology for supernaturalism does not absolve philosophical naturalism from having to have one lest it have the same status as ontological dualism or supernaturalism.
Correct.
So given that....what is the methodology for philosophical naturalism?
No idea. You could argue that there is a method based on PN (which is what I think Outrider is saying), but not one for PN.
Does this mean we can get back to you giving us a method based on PS?
-
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Aha. The broken record trick. Time to draw a close over this discussion. It's clear you have nothing.
That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.
O.
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Well here's your chance to kill two birds with one stone.
Seeing as how it's your turn to offer up something more than just more demands and questions (given that you're the one with the unsubstantiated claim of a god), and seeing as how you apparently have a clarity about what constitutes a methodology where we apparently don't...
How about you explain your methodology for establishing that your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination.
O.
-
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Only in your mind.
-
Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.
Only in your mind.
Please etc.
-
I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."
Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.
I speak as I find, from my own analysis of my previous experience of a 'spiritual' viewpoint, and my present position of non-belief, accompanied by my reading of those who have also travelled the path from a belief in the supernatural (in its broadest sense) to a more naturalistic standpoint.
I have been particularly impressed by the testimony of Bishop Richard Holloway and his journey from belief in a supernatural God and traditional Christian view, to a more humanistic standpoint, often accompanied by a great deal of mental trauma in the process (there are a few others I could have mentioned who have followed similar paths). If you wish to denigrate such admirable people as "Gumball machine theorists", then you might do well to attend to your own "Christian witness", which has for a long time degenerated into word salad, peppered with such phrases as "philosophical naturalism" as an all-purpose spice.
To continue the food analogy, in the words of Jesus (which I quote as best I can from memory):
"If a man ask you for an egg, would you give him a scorpion:
if he ask you for bread, would you give him a stone?"
The words of Richard Holloway certainly give people something nutritious to chew on.
Whereas the sterile pseudo-academics of our Vlad are simply a mouthful of gravel, at best.
-
Other than that, all you guys are asking for methodology. which incidently philosophical naturalism doesn't seem to have either.
I will venture that what we are seeing is the confusion between methodological materialism and philosophical naturalism attempted to be changed into a virtue.
No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.
Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.
Why? We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world. When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy.
See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?
And did so very well.
-
I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."
Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.
I speak as I find, from my own analysis of my previous experience of a 'spiritual' viewpoint, and my present position of non-belief, accompanied by my reading of those who have also travelled the path from a belief in the supernatural (in its broadest sense) to a more naturalistic standpoint.
I have been particularly impressed by the testimony of Bishop Richard Holloway and his journey from belief in a supernatural God and traditional Christian view, to a more humanistic standpoint, often accompanied by a great deal of mental trauma in the process (there are a few others I could have mentioned who have followed similar paths). If you wish to denigrate such admirable people as "Gumball machine theorists", then you might do well to attend to your own "Christian witness", which has for a long time degenerated into word salad, peppered with such phrases as "philosophical naturalism" as an all-purpose spice.
To continue the food analogy, in the words of Jesus (which I quote as best I can from memory):
"If a man ask you for an egg, would you give him a scorpion:
if he ask you for bread, would you give him a stone?"
The words of Richard Holloway certainly give people something nutritious to chew on.
Whereas the sterile pseudo-academics of our Vlad are simply a mouthful of gravel, at best.
You have me at a disadvantage. I am only familiar with Holloway's contribution to a work called Priestlands progress which is over 30 years old now. That he has made the transition from supernaturalism to naturalism suggests he has leapt a fence. It would be interested in his motivations.
I have no idea what you are talking about and as such it is probably respectful not to say more than you are, like an evangelical commending a personal experience. I'm certainly interested in hearing both it and why you think it is more valid than a conversion to Christianity.
Others on this board do strike me as Gumball theorists. Naturalism on the whole for me is an arbitrary position in terms of it's ruling out and materialism either has no way of establishing itself as true other than a circular argument. That seems to me as true without resort to emotions etc.
-
But you and others seem to be suggesting that it could have been a trick (that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?). If so then you must surely have some reason for so suggesting.
I'm suggesting that it's a possibility, and that given that we have other instances of well-witnessed events of seemingly impossible things being perpetrated, that it's a more likely explanation than an actual resurrection.
If you don't know it is possible to pull off such a trick, why suggest it was a trick? You are claiming it was something you don't seem to really believe yourself.
You don't know it's possible to resurrect yourself after incarnating yourself in a sacrificial avatar, but you accept it as the best explanation... Essentially, all deceptions of this kind require a set-up to make you think you know what's going to happen, a distraction where the deception is either out of sight or out of your line of attention, and then a reveal.
Help me here.
You'd need to talk to professional magicians to get inside secrets like that, but I don't need to demonstrate exactly how - it's conceivable, easily, and it's a more likely explanation than actual resurrection.
You keep saying it is "a more likely explanation", but don't back it up with anything substantial. If you really think it could have been a trick then you need to explain how it could have happened rather than (metaphorically) wave your hands in the air and say it is conceivable. It is conceivable that it was (a) God. We need to go beyond what is conceivable. I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead. You are suggesting a 1st century Derren Brown as a concept, but no more.
That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.
O.
Again you say it is "more likely", but again no evidence.
-
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.
Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.
Like what?
Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.
Agreed, but what better explanation is there? If you think there is one, please tell us and make it more than a concept.
People are not reliable witnesses at the best of times, in emotional times like a crucifixion, even less so. That's not a judgment on the purported integrity of the eye-witnesses, it's a well-validated finding about human perception and memory.
O.
On a dozen separate occasions, the individuals and groups would all have to be wrong. What about the tomb? Your theory does not account for the empty tomb?
-
Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?
I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.
Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.
Like what?
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.
Agreed, but what better explanation is there? If you think there is one, please tell us and make it more than a concept.
A combination of mistaken people, deliberate deception and post-event exaggeration seems the most likely option - we just need to look at the rise of Mormonism to see how it happens. I don't have specifics, but I don't need specifics - deceptive people with vested interests and a credulous public coupled with selective editing at later dates is far more likely than actual magic.
On a dozen separate occasions, the individuals and groups would all have to be wrong. What about the tomb? Your theory does not account for the empty tomb?
We don't know there was an empty tomb. We don't know that there was a Jesus, there are only references to a cult following him outside of the New Testament. Expert analysis suggests that it's likely he existed, I appreciate, and that some of the accounts were written within living memory of his death, but whilst there's enough evidence to suggest he probably existed there's certainly nothing strong enough to support the contention that the normal operation of physical laws was suspended.
That's an extraordinary claim, and it requires more support than is being offered. That doesn't disprove the claim, but it's not enough to justify it.
O.
-
It is conceivable that it was (a) God. We need to go beyond what is conceivable.
How do you go beyond what is conceivable? If it is not conceivable, by definition, you cannot conceive of it.
I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.
No you haven't. You read a story in a book.
You are suggesting a 1st century Derren Brown as a concept, but no more.
That's a new one: argument ad boring.
That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.
O.
Again you say it is "more likely", but again no evidence.
Why do you not accept the well known fact that dead people do not come alive as evidence?
-
I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.
You may well be as bored as I am about me raising this BUT I know of evidence in terms of science, law and history, all of which are methodologically naturalistic. What is this use of the word for a supernatural claim and what is your methodology for determining it? Will you even attempt to answer this, or as you have done continually obfuscate and evade?
-
It is conceivable that it was (a) God.
Not on the basis of these anecdotes, and since we are talking anecdotes that are indistinguishable from fiction (e.g. there is a risk that, for example, the 'empty tomb' bit isn't actually true) then it is far more conceivable that it is people.
I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead. You are suggesting a 1st century
You haven't seen evidence - you've just encountered, and taken far too seriously, what credulous people in antiquity who were steeped in religiosity said about someone whose divine claims they were no doubt committed to - but what they said is now known to be impossible.
Therefore their claims can be dismissed and are best seen as being a symptom of their time, place and culture.
-
I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.
You may well be as bored as I am about me raising this BUT I know of evidence in terms of science, law and history, all of which are methodologically naturalistic. What is this use of the word for a supernatural claim and what is your methodology for determining it? Will you even attempt to answer this, or as you have done continually obfuscate and evade?
But a raising from the dead must also be a material event............
Bad luck son.
-
So Vlad provides no methodology again. Nul points
-
BTW Vlad, any reason for switching the terms naturalistic and material here other than lying by creating a strawman? Is it that you are so stupid to think it makes no difference? Or are just such a big fan of lying that you throb and spunk onto the screen at the simplistic lie?
-
BTW Vlad, any reason for switching the terms naturalistic and material here other than lying by creating a strawman? Is it that you are so stupid to think it makes no difference? Or are just such a big fan of lying that you throb and spunk onto the screen at the simplistic lie?
Is the study of material events not naturalistic?
You've been found talking shit trying to portray the resurrection as a supernatural event as if it only manifested itself in supernature,
But it is also an event claimed as happening in nature.
Suck it up.
-
BTW Vlad, any reason for switching the terms naturalistic and material here other than lying by creating a strawman? Is it that you are so stupid to think it makes no difference? Or are just such a big fan of lying that you throb and spunk onto the screen at the simplistic lie?
Is the study of material events not naturalistic?
You've been found talking shit trying to portray the resurrection as a supernatural event as if it only manifested itself in supernature,
But it is also an event claimed as happening in nature.
Suck it up.
And there hasn't been sufficient evidence to justify accepting the claim as a material event, or even a methodology by which we could determine if it happened as a supernatural one.
O.
-
Ah so you have gone for the declaring your stupidity option, Vlad. Brave.
Quite a difference between material, something that has a physical appearance, and naturalistic, something that is assumed to be within a natural cause and effect.
Please stop abusing terms like a Catholic priest abusing a random child.
-
BTW Vlad, any reason for switching the terms naturalistic and material here other than lying by creating a strawman? Is it that you are so stupid to think it makes no difference? Or are just such a big fan of lying that you throb and spunk onto the screen at the simplistic lie?
Is the study of material events not naturalistic?
You've been found talking shit trying to portray the resurrection as a supernatural event as if it only manifested itself in supernature,
But it is also an event claimed as happening in nature.
Suck it up.
And there hasn't been sufficient evidence to justify accepting the claim as a material event, or even a methodology by which we could determine if it happened as a supernatural one.
O.
Well, Sane and Gordon seem to be misunderstood about history and Gordon has not provided an alternative history and made a huge assumption on the credulity of people at this time.
I've not seen your historical prowess in action. perhaps you can provide an adequate alternative history since it essential if you think the one provided is inadequate.
Please don't waste our time with pleas of not having the burden of proof since a lack of a history is not the same as there being no God
-
Ah so you have gone for the declaring your stupidity option, Vlad. Brave.
Quite a difference between material, something that has a physical appearance, and naturalistic, something that is assumed to be within a natural cause and effect.
Please stop abusing terms like a Catholic priest abusing a random child.
I cannot continue in a debating group that has you as a member.
Either you go or I do.
-
Can you tell me how I am being 'misunderstood' about the study of history? Can you tell me, Vlad, how a supernatural claim can be investigated using the study of history, which is methodologically naturalistic? Will you answer this time? Or as many hundreds of time evade and lie? Why do you lie so much?
-
Ah so you have gone for the declaring your stupidity option, Vlad. Brave.
Quite a difference between material, something that has a physical appearance, and naturalistic, something that is assumed to be within a natural cause and effect.
Please stop abusing terms like a Catholic priest abusing a random child.
I cannot continue in a debating group that has you as a member.
Either you go or I do.
Brave Sir Vlad ran away, ran away
-
I cannot continue in a debating group that has you as a member.
Either you go or I do.
Sorry to see you go. You have been quite entertaining, if not coherent.
-
I cannot continue in a debating group that has you as a member.
Either you go or I do.
Sorry to see you go. You have been quite entertaining,
You haven't.
-
I cannot continue in a debating group that has you as a member.
Either you go or I do.
Sorry to see you go. You have been quite entertaining,
You haven't.
You're still here. I thought you were leaving. I think, to qualify as a Floo Flounce, you do actually have to stop posting for a bit.
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_Law
-
To be fair to Vlad he has opened a battle of wills to decide who goes. Bye, bye, Vlad.
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
You were a long time gone from this forum as I recall, Sooty and arrived as Hillside left...or is that him with his hand controlling you?
-
To be completely clear, I hope Vlad stays. Despite his continual lying, and the amount of random fucking of the English language, he is a poster that adds to.the forum.
-
To be fair to Vlad he has opened a battle of wills to decide who goes. Bye, bye, Vlad.
I'm probably the only one out of you and me who can find the door.
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
You were a long time gone from this forum as I recall, Sooty and arrived as Hillside left...or is that him with his hand controlling you?
Why do you indulge in this cheap, laughable nonsense, Vlad?
-
To be fair to Vlad he has opened a battle of wills to decide who goes. Bye, bye, Vlad.
I'm probably the only one out of you and me who can find the door.
You seen to be struggling here.
-
You were a long time gone from this forum as I recall
That's correct.
What does it have to do with your announced flounce and the fact that you're still here?
-
To be completely clear, I hope Vlad stays. Despite his continual lying, and the amount of random fucking of the English language, he is a poster that adds to.the forum.
... and what he usually adds is 'philosophical naturalism' every other bastard post.
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
You were a long time gone from this forum as I recall, Sooty and arrived as Hillside left...or is that him with his hand controlling you?
Why do you indulge in this cheap, laughable nonsense, Vlad?
Someone tell him to get on stage quick before it wears off...
-
You were a long time gone from this forum as I recall
That's correct.
What does it have to do with your announced flounce and the fact that you're still here?
I've asked Sane to resign and I'm giving him adequate time to sever his support networks on here and establish them elsewhere.
-
Points to Andy
-
Don't think it's gonna happen, old fruit. Now, since you said it was him or you ...
-
And Sane is laughing at you and has no intention of 'resigning', so off you go
-
And Sane is laughing at you and has no intention of 'resigning', so off you go
In my own time.
-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy9_lfjQopU
-
Though personally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eXw47qb4U0
-
But yet again, no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPWVq6MwW4E
-
Get your lighters out:
http://youtu.be/LeMk7B46xg8
-
Is that Vlad gone then?
-
He's threatened to leave before, and (of course) didn't.
There ought to be one of those internet laws about it, I reckon.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_Law
Read this link, and within it came across 'Shaker's Law' - is this our very own Shaker of these here parts?
-
Yep
-
Well, Sane and Gordon seem to be misunderstood about history and Gordon has not provided an alternative history and made a huge assumption on the credulity of people at this time.
We don't need to provide an 'alternate' history - all you have is a claim with insufficient evidence to support it.
I've not seen your historical prowess in action. perhaps you can provide an adequate alternative history since it essential if you think the one provided is inadequate.
Again, no - your claim is not valid in the absence of disproof. Your task is to provide sufficient evidence to support your claim, and one heavily edited and reworked book from a not impartial author well after the facts isn't sufficient to justify that extraordinary a claim.
Please don't waste our time with pleas of not having the burden of proof since a lack of a history is not the same as there being no God
Please don't keep playing the 'disprove my claim or it's right' nonsense...
O.
[/quote]
-
Please don't keep playing the 'disprove my claim or it's right' nonsense...
That's perennially popular round here. Take that away from some people and they've nothing left.
-
I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Then your apologists must be supremely naive: their confirmation bias is showing (perhaps wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles at the same time has that effect).
We've been through this with Alien, who has struggled with this too: nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded': no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth, as might be expected given that religiosity was probably the norm back then so that people were highly credulous of a religious narrative much more so than today.
So credulous they forgot that dead people stay dead?
Therefore, without a method to explain it, a resurrection can't be considered likely (e.g. it has no probability) but that people make mistakes and tell lies in support of causes is known human behaviour and as such is a clear possibility: and one that Christians here seem happy to avoid addressing.
A few contradictions to sort out here:
"but that people make mistakes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded' "
"but that people... tell lies in support of causes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth".
So far then, no method is needed to explain the resurrection for it to be considered as the explanation for Christianity.
-
As I have asked before, if Jesus did resurrect why didn't he stick around on earth throughout the ages instead of conveniently popping upstairs? ::)
-
A few contradictions to sort out here:
"but that people make mistakes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded' "
You don't need to be deluded to make mistakes.
"but that people... tell lies in support of causes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth".
People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative.
So far then, no method is needed to explain the resurrection for it to be considered as the explanation for Christianity.
You still haven't presented a method to confirm the truth of the resurrection. However, you have shown in your own responses in this thread that what people find themselves believing is a separate issue from whether or not what they believe is actually true.
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
Confirmation bias is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and practical demonstrations.
Evolution is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and at least one well-publicised demonstration.
God is an unevidenced claim, yet still believed.
Can you see the difference?
O.
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
Confirmation bias is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and practical demonstrations.
Evolution is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and at least one well-publicised demonstration.
God is an unevidenced claim, yet still believed.
Can you see the difference?
O.
Evolution falsifiable
God not falsifiable
Can you see the difference?
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
Confirmation bias is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and practical demonstrations.
Evolution is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and at least one well-publicised demonstration.
God is an unevidenced claim, yet still believed.
Can you see the difference?
O.
God not falsifiable.
Phlosophical naturalism not falsifiable.
can you see the difference?
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
Confirmation bias is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and practical demonstrations.
Evolution is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and at least one well-publicised demonstration.
God is an unevidenced claim, yet still believed.
Can you see the difference?
O.
Evolution falsifiable
God not falsifiable
Can you see the difference?
Yes, one of them has a methodology by which we can assess the validity of claims, one of them remains merely assertion in the absence of any methodology... you don't happen to have one on you, do you?
O.
-
God not falsifiable.
Phlosophical naturalism not falsifiable.
can you see the difference?
One of them is an assertion without any means of determining its validity.
One of them is the assumption at the foundation of a methodology which has built up centuries of accumulated evidence to validate the initial presumption.
If only there were a methodology for both, eh?
O.
-
Gordon writes ---People can believe things that aren't true, and especially so if they are credulous, when it confirms what they'd like to be true or where the information comes from sources they regard as authoritative===================
But where evolution is concerned it is all fact say's he. ::)
~TW~
Confirmation bias is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and practical demonstrations.
Evolution is a well-studied phenomenon, with a wealth of supporting evidence, peer-reviewed published studies and at least one well-publicised demonstration.
God is an unevidenced claim, yet still believed.
Can you see the difference?
O.
Evolution falsifiable
God not falsifiable
Can you see the difference?
Yes, one of them has a methodology by which we can assess the validity of claims, one of them remains merely assertion in the absence of any methodology... you don't happen to have one on you, do you?
O.
What is the methodology which establishes the truth of philosophical naturalism?
Is it the same one by which we can assess the validity of claims and therefore settle the validity of the claim of philosophical naturalism?
-
What is the methodology which establishes the truth of philosophical naturalism?
Is it the same one by which we can assess the validity of claims and therefore settle the validity of the claim of philosophical naturalism?
Who said there was one? I said there was an assumption of philosophical naturalism, and the continued validity of the findings made under that assumption served to validate the assumption. No-one made a 'truth claim'.
What's the methodology by which we can prove or verify supernatural claims?
O.
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Exactly, and is tweeked as new data is discovered.
-
What is the methodology which establishes the truth of philosophical naturalism?
Is it the same one by which we can assess the validity of claims and therefore settle the validity of the claim of philosophical naturalism?
Who said there was one? I said there was an assumption of philosophical naturalism, and the continued validity of the findings made under that assumption served to validate the assumption. No-one made a 'truth claim'.
What's the methodology by which we can prove or verify supernatural claims?
O.
So let me get this straight. It is OK to accept philosophical naturalism by means of argumentum ad populum...but nothing else.
I wrote earlier on that the only methodology is science. You keep a) deliberately ignoring that.
b) state philosophical naturalism doesn't have a methodology and it's OK particularly with enough support.
c) The supernatural has no methodology and it's not OK and any support it has is argumentum ad populum,
d) It's ok for anything other than science to have a methodology except the supernatural ( a fine piece of special pleading if ever there was one)
-
So let me get this straight. It is OK to accept philosophical naturalism by means of argumentum ad populum...but nothing else.
No, you don't have to accept philosophical naturalism at all, you can operate on the hope that supernatural pixie power makes the thoughts you presume you have relate to unrelated but really coincidental movements of your fingers on a keyboard that the internet fairy is watching whilst everybody's internet browser software miraculously shows the exact same confused meaning, complete with superfluous addition of "philosophical naturalism". That's your call.
Accepting the premise that cause and effect are consistent is not 'argumentum ad populum' - it's an assumption, no-one is contesting that it's proven. No-one, similarly, is saying that because people appreciate that scientific findings continue to work that their belief somehow makes it right. What I'm saying is that because scientific findings consistently repeat, we can have an increasing but never total confidence that our initial presumption is correct.
Remember, scientific findings are always provisional.
I wrote earlier on that the only methodology is science. You keep a) deliberately ignoring that.
b) state philosophical naturalism doesn't have a methodology and it's OK particularly with enough support.
c) The supernatural has no methodology and it's not OK and any support it has is argumentum ad populum,
d) It's ok for anything other than science to have a methodology except the supernatural ( a fine piece of special pleading if ever there was one)
You've written a lot of things, most of it an attempt to shoehorn the phrase 'philosophical naturalism' into the conversation like a four year old that's learnt a new word.
I know philosophical naturalism is not a method. It's a presumption upon which the scientific method is founded.
We don't ignore your claim that only science has a methodology, we just challenge how you can have any confidence in your claims of god in the absence of a methodology of some sort. It's OK for anything to have a methodology outside of science - just as, say, logic and mathematics do.
So there's no special pleading here - we have a methodology, we admit its limitations, and we build our provisional understanding of reality upon it. So well supported is it in practical terms that, in everyday life, we treat it AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN PROVEN, but we acknowledge in formal argument that it hasn't.
You, on the other hand, contend 'an experience of god' without any justification for differentiating from any of the posited alternative possibilities; you claim 'likelihood' with no method stated for determining such, and then accuse others of special pleading.
O.
-
So let me get this straight. It is OK to accept philosophical naturalism by means of argumentum ad populum...but nothing else.
No, you don't have to accept philosophical naturalism at all, you can operate on the hope that supernatural pixie power makes the thoughts you presume you have relate to unrelated but really coincidental movements of your fingers on a keyboard that the internet fairy is watching whilst everybody's internet browser software miraculously shows the exact same confused meaning, complete with superfluous addition of "philosophical naturalism". That's your call.
Look........... are you continually mistaking the material world with philosophical naturalism or are you taking the piss?
-
Look........... are you continually mistaking the material world with philosophical naturalism or are you taking the piss?
... and when did you stop beating your wife?
O.
-
You still haven't presented a method to confirm the truth of the resurrection. However, you have shown in your own responses in this thread that what people find themselves believing is a separate issue from whether or not what they believe is actually true.
What about all the miracles which Jesus did that are said to have been witnessed by crowds of people, such as the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:12. You don't have to read far in the gospels before you get to a miracle which is seen by a crowd. We are also occasionally given names, such as Bartimaeus, who was healed of blindness. Presumably he could be traced and his healing verified by the reader. Same for Lazarus. These miracles would have been discredited by people who knew them if the accounts had been fabricated. The men who buried Jesus are also named in John, as are the women who watched his death and burial. The same women are named as finding the tomb empty, and meeting the angels and finally Jesus himself.
The resurrection was believed by so many because people had witnessed his healing miracles beforehand.
-
Harry Potter met lots of people with names.
And you still aren't getting anywhere near a method.
-
You still haven't presented a method to confirm the truth of the resurrection. However, you have shown in your own responses in this thread that what people find themselves believing is a separate issue from whether or not what they believe is actually true.
What about all the miracles which Jesus did that are said to have been witnessed by crowds of people, such as the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:12. You don't have to read far in the gospels before you get to a miracle which is seen by a crowd. We are also occasionally given names, such as Bartimaeus, who was healed of blindness. Presumably he could be traced and his healing verified by the reader. Same for Lazarus. These miracles would have been discredited by people who knew them if the accounts had been fabricated. The men who buried Jesus are also named in John, as are the women who watched his death and burial. The same women are named as finding the tomb empty, and meeting the angels and finally Jesus himself.
The resurrection was believed by so many because people had witnessed his healing miracles beforehand.
Do you know that reporting that it was witnessed by a group, does not mean there was a group.
I died last week and came back to life, and it was witnessed by 2,000 people.
Unless you have the testimony of the 2,000 people it is meaningless.
-
You still haven't presented a method to confirm the truth of the resurrection. However, you have shown in your own responses in this thread that what people find themselves believing is a separate issue from whether or not what they believe is actually true.
What about all the miracles which Jesus did that are said to have been witnessed by crowds of people, such as the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:12. You don't have to read far in the gospels before you get to a miracle which is seen by a crowd. We are also occasionally given names, such as Bartimaeus, who was healed of blindness. Presumably he could be traced and his healing verified by the reader. Same for Lazarus. These miracles would have been discredited by people who knew them if the accounts had been fabricated. The men who buried Jesus are also named in John, as are the women who watched his death and burial. The same women are named as finding the tomb empty, and meeting the angels and finally Jesus himself.
The resurrection was believed by so many because people had witnessed his healing miracles beforehand.
We don't have a crowd of witnesses, though, Spud, we have one person who probably wasn't actually there recounting a tale he's heard in which it's claimed a crowd of people saw something.
O.
-
You still haven't presented a method to confirm the truth of the resurrection. However, you have shown in your own responses in this thread that what people find themselves believing is a separate issue from whether or not what they believe is actually true.
What about all the miracles which Jesus did that are said to have been witnessed by crowds of people, such as the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:12. You don't have to read far in the gospels before you get to a miracle which is seen by a crowd. We are also occasionally given names, such as Bartimaeus, who was healed of blindness. Presumably he could be traced and his healing verified by the reader. Same for Lazarus. These miracles would have been discredited by people who knew them if the accounts had been fabricated. The men who buried Jesus are also named in John, as are the women who watched his death and burial. The same women are named as finding the tomb empty, and meeting the angels and finally Jesus himself.
The resurrection was believed by so many because people had witnessed his healing miracles beforehand.
So the story goes!
-
We don't have a crowd of witnesses, though, Spud, we have one person who probably wasn't actually there recounting a tale he's heard in which it's claimed a crowd of people saw something.
O.
And we have no real idea of who that person is.
-
As raised numerous times previously, we have a well attested miracle witnessed by numbers far in excess of any claims for the resurrection in the Miracle of the Sun -
Do theists on here (A) think it was a miracle? (b) If they don't, can they explain why since by any form of analysis it is better evidenced that it at least happened, even if we cannot ascribe it to being supernatural? (c) If they do, how do they think that no one other than those there noticed the effects?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
-
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
I don't give a damn what the Bible says. I can show you the evidence that demonstrates why evolution is a fact. Where is your evidence that anything the Bible says in the same field is correct?
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The Bible has yet to be demonstrated to be correct with regard to living creatures (not to mention a whole lot else ... but let's stay on track for now).
Basically, as soon as you start invoking the Bible, it's obvious that you have no argument.
At all.
-
As raised numerous times previously, we have a well attested miracle witnessed by numbers far in excess of any claims for the resurrection in the Miracle of the Sun -
Do theists on here (A) think it was a miracle? (b) If they don't, can they explain why since by any form of analysis it is better evidenced that it at least happened, even if we cannot ascribe it to being supernatural? (c) If they do, how do they think that no one other than those there noticed the effects?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
I feel duty bound to correct you on one point, NS.
Not even everybody present at the site saw anything at all unusual or remarkable - and that includes devout believers, not just sceptics.
-
I feel duty bound to correct you on one point, NS.
Not even everybody present at the site saw anything at all unusual or remarkable - and that includes devout believers, not just sceptics.
Indeeed, and thanks for that - of course it triggers the further correction that the Pope saw it at the Vatican 33 years later
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
Evolution is a phenomenon. It has been observed in the laboratory. It is not in question at all. Evolution is a fact in exactly the same way that the gravitational effect is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution, the neo-Darwinian, genetics-based explanation for how evolution occurs is a theory: it is one of the best supported, most widely bolstered theories that we have in the body of science.
To deny The Theory of Evolution is ignorance of the highest order, but to deny that evolution happens is just laughably, demonstrably, moronically wrong.
O.
-
Oh dear.
Giving that you're dealing with ~TW~ I think we might well be about to have 'that' conversation about the word theory ...
-
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
I don't give a damn what the Bible says. I can show you the evidence that demonstrates why evolution is a fact. Where is your evidence that anything the Bible says in the same field is correct?
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The Bible has yet to be demonstrated to be correct with regard to living creatures (not to mention a whole lot else ... but let's stay on track for now).
Basically, as soon as you start invoking the Bible, it's obvious that you have no argument.
At all.
Evolution is a theory but if you can post the evidence of this Genius who has proven it to be a fact then do so I am waiting.I did not read it in the papers.
~TW~
-
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
I don't give a damn what the Bible says. I can show you the evidence that demonstrates why evolution is a fact. Where is your evidence that anything the Bible says in the same field is correct?
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The Bible has yet to be demonstrated to be correct with regard to living creatures (not to mention a whole lot else ... but let's stay on track for now).
Basically, as soon as you start invoking the Bible, it's obvious that you have no argument.
At all.
Evolution is a theory but if you can post the evidence of this Genius who has proven it to be a fact then do so I am waiting.I did not read it in the papers.
~TW~
Evolution is a theory with some substance behind it, belief in the deity has none!
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
Evolution is a phenomenon. It has been observed in the laboratory. It is not in question at all. Evolution is a fact in exactly the same way that the gravitational effect is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution, the neo-Darwinian, genetics-based explanation for how evolution occurs is a theory: it is one of the best supported, most widely bolstered theories that we have in the body of science.
To deny The Theory of Evolution is ignorance of the highest order, but to deny that evolution happens is just laughably, demonstrably, moronically wrong.
O.
You need to put more water in your drinks.
~TW~
-
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
I don't give a damn what the Bible says. I can show you the evidence that demonstrates why evolution is a fact. Where is your evidence that anything the Bible says in the same field is correct?
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The Bible has yet to be demonstrated to be correct with regard to living creatures (not to mention a whole lot else ... but let's stay on track for now).
Basically, as soon as you start invoking the Bible, it's obvious that you have no argument.
At all.
Evolution is a theory but if you can post the evidence of this Genius who has proven it to be a fact then do so I am waiting.I did not read it in the papers.
~TW~
Evolution is a theory with some substance behind it, belief in the deity has none!
So you disagree with the other two lollypops. ;) They both think it is a fact.
~TW~
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
Evolution is a phenomenon. It has been observed in the laboratory. It is not in question at all. Evolution is a fact in exactly the same way that the gravitational effect is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution, the neo-Darwinian, genetics-based explanation for how evolution occurs is a theory: it is one of the best supported, most widely bolstered theories that we have in the body of science.
To deny The Theory of Evolution is ignorance of the highest order, but to deny that evolution happens is just laughably, demonstrably, moronically wrong.
O.
You need to put more water in your drinks.
~TW~
It is you who obviously hasn't a clue what you are talking about, if your posts are an indication of what passes for 'thought' where you are concerned! ::)
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
Evolution is a phenomenon. It has been observed in the laboratory. It is not in question at all. Evolution is a fact in exactly the same way that the gravitational effect is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution, the neo-Darwinian, genetics-based explanation for how evolution occurs is a theory: it is one of the best supported, most widely bolstered theories that we have in the body of science.
To deny The Theory of Evolution is ignorance of the highest order, but to deny that evolution happens is just laughably, demonstrably, moronically wrong.
O.
You need to put more water in your drinks.
~TW~
As rebuttals go, you forgot the rebuttal. Should I presume you cede the point? Or should I presume that you are allergic to facts and reason, and are going to continue to claim that some god thought Australians would really, really like marsupials...?
O.
-
That's based on testable, shareable evidence though ~TW~ ... you know, real stuff ;)
Sorry shaker you are well wrong the bible says----------And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Evolution does not say that so you, need like Gordon to think again.
~TW~
Evolution is a phenomenon. It has been observed in the laboratory. It is not in question at all. Evolution is a fact in exactly the same way that the gravitational effect is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution, the neo-Darwinian, genetics-based explanation for how evolution occurs is a theory: it is one of the best supported, most widely bolstered theories that we have in the body of science.
To deny The Theory of Evolution is ignorance of the highest order, but to deny that evolution happens is just laughably, demonstrably, moronically wrong.
O.
You need to put more water in your drinks.
~TW~
As rebuttals go, you forgot the rebuttal. Should I presume you cede the point? Or should I presume that you are allergic to facts and reason, and are going to continue to claim that some god thought Australians would really, really like marsupials...?
O.
What facts this would have made World shattering news so where is it.
~TW~
-
What facts this would have made World shattering news
It did - in 1859.
Most people have got on board with reality since then, ~TW~
-
So you disagree with the other two lollypops. ;) They both think it is a fact.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.
-
Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.
Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise. However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'. In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question. Why? Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions. As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories. Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?
-
Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.
Doubtless. The comment was in response to ~TW~, however.
However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question. Why? Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions. As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories. Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?
Perhaps there's no answer. Humans have a lot more brain-space than is needed for immediate evolutionary needs and so tend to ask lots of these kind of questions, but the ability to pose a question doesn't entail that there's any actual answer to it.
I'd much rather accept this than take on - or rather, be taken in by - any old tripe just because the lack of an answer to what in itself may be a meaningless question bothers me. Not that it does; but some people are incredibly disturbed by not knowing things.
-
Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.
Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise. However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'. In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question. Why? Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions. As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories. Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?
I'd suggest that it is more the case that 'why' isn't always a relevant question, so that to pose it without good reason may commit the fallacy of begging the question.
-
'Begging the question' has a very exact and specific meaning within logic (although very widely mistaken and misused by people wrongly thinking it means 'This raises the question ...'), but in this case I think amongst some people there's a begging for answers - begging for answers to questions which may be meaningless.
Oscar Wilde said "All art is quite useless," and he was right. He meant that it's an appurtenance of human life, something that some humans do because once our immediate needs for survival and comfort are met, once we've dealt with the four F's every day, we have so much brain-space left over that we fill the time with curious things such as writing sonnets and novels and symphonies. There's very likely to be no evolutionary survival value in any of this whatever; there's no evolutionary utility to it, nothing to do with the mundane getting and spending and bean-counting of everyday life; it's what we do because we're human and have brains bigger than we need and we like the challenge. It amuses us, and we may find that what amuses us can amuse others as well.
I strongly suspect that so many of these existential "Why?" questions spring from precisely the same source.
-
Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.
Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise. However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'. In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question. Why? Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions. As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories. Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?
I'd suggest that it is more the case that 'why' isn't always a relevant question, so that to pose it without good reason may commit the fallacy of begging the question.
Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.
It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''
-
Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.
It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''
Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.
But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.
Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?
-
Doubtless. The comment was in response to ~TW~, however.
I'm aware of that
Perhaps there's no answer. Humans have a lot more brain-space than is needed for immediate evolutionary needs and so tend to ask lots of these kind of questions, but the ability to pose a question doesn't entail that there's any actual answer to it.
I would disagree. Linguistics suggests that language generally develops from circumstances, not ahead of them.
I'd much rather accept this than take on - or rather, be taken in by - any old tripe just because the lack of an answer to what in itself may be a meaningless question bothers me. Not that it does; but some people are incredibly disturbed by not knowing things.
You are perfectly entitled to accept this; I'm not suggesting that you aren't. However, I tend to be somewhat more inquisitive than simply taking something for granted. Once I got into linguistics later in life, that inquisitiveness became stronger, and the bog-standard answers that you like to present from science failed to satisfy me other than as the answers you would give a child. OK, that may have been triggered by my pre-existing faith, but exploring deeper into that particular field has strengthened, rather than weakened my faith.
-
Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.
But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.
Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?
I would dispute the claim that it has "everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it" because there needs to be some indication of an idea/concept (ie an answer) to be able to ask the question.
-
You are perfectly entitled to accept this; I'm not suggesting that you aren't. However, I tend to be somewhat more inquisitive than simply taking something for granted. Once I got into linguistics later in life, that inquisitiveness became stronger, and the bog-standard answers that you like to present from science failed to satisfy me other than as the answers you would give a child.
You're not actually saying anything here that refutes anything I've previously said. Inquisitiveness is a magnificent attribute, but without some firm grounding - the scientific method is the firmest and most secure we have - it tends to end up as arid question-spinning for its own sake and always with the danger that the answers are rather obviously pat, self-serving and conveniently human-centred. Madey-uppy, as I said. Religion, or rather the pseudo-answers that religions purport to provide, falls entirely within this domain.
A second point is that the fact that something doesn't satisfy you is neither here nor there. The universe isn't here to satisfy anybody's peremptory demands for answers.
OK, that may have been triggered by my pre-existing faith
I don't think there's any 'may' about it.
but exploring deeper into that particular field has strengthened, rather than weakened my faith.
As is pretty well bound to happen when you have a prior ideological commitment to shore up where any contrary points or contrary evidence are in themselves taken as strengthening and confirming that commitment. In desperately sad circumstances Alan Burns is engaged in just this process right now.
-
I would dispute the claim that it has "everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it" because there needs to be some indication of an idea/concept (ie an answer) to be able to ask the question.
Why are groobles fnards?
A second point is that you're not taking into account the misapplication of concepts that make sense in one context but are meaningless in another. "What's the point of a screwdriver?" - the question makes sense. It's an appropriate question for something like a screwdriver, with a clear, well-defined answer. A screwdriver is a man-made thing explicitly designed with a purpose in mind; you can, incidentally to its main purpose, do other things with it - stir cake mix; get the wax out of your ears - but it's primarily intended to drive in screws. Just about anything and everything that human beings make admits of the same legitimate question - what's a radio for? What's wallpaper for? What's a clarinet for?
These are all made artefacts conceived and created by purposeful agents, which is why it's a legitimate question. On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense. It's extrapolation from the domain where it makes sense to the domain where it doesn't. Until and unless there's good reason to think otherwise, that the universe simply is because it is - it may not have been at all, but is - is the most minimal, conservative, spartan, Occam's-Razor-obeying conclusion. Exactly the same applies to the phenomenon of life.
-
On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense.
Which is where I would disagree; there are plenty of indications that the universe was (a) made by a conscious, intelligent agent and (b) made for a reason or purpose.
-
Let's hear them.
-
On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense.
Which is where I would disagree; there are plenty of indications that the universe was (a) made by a conscious, intelligent agent and (b) made for a reason or purpose.
So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?
-
I'm pretty sure of the sort of thing that'll be brought up but I'm still waiting to find out, G ;)
-
The existence of ordered laws of nature; the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns; picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something); the complexity of natural life; the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances; the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'.
There are others, but I need to be on my way to the railway.
In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case. Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.
-
So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?
Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.
-
The existence of ordered laws of nature
Doesn't imply a god. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct there could be a colossal number of universes with their own ordered laws of nature but incapable of supporting life.
the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns
This is part of the fallacy of fine-tuning given a thorough drubbing by the late Victor J. Stenger in his book of that name. Life only exists where it's capable of existing - that's a tautology, but that's also the point; life fits around the conditions in which it's found, not vice versa.
picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something)
This is basically the woeful C.S. Lewis's argument that an idea or desire wouldn't exist unless there's something that corresponds to that idea or that the desire can be fulfilled. This dreadful tripe has been taken apart more times than I can possibly remember and I can refer you to the appropriate sources, save to give the most obvious rebuttal in the form of people who work in the film industry who on a daily basis dream up (and nowadays, with the help of CGI and the like, give form to) things that don't exist. They even call them imagineers.
Where the existence of the concept of gods ultimately came from nobody really knows, but the language typically used - Father; King; Lord and so forth - gives a few interesting pointers. It's another example of extrapolation from the domain where such language makes sense to the domain where it doesn't.
the complexity of natural life
Complexity is complexity is complexity ... and? What of it? Doesn't imply a god.
the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances
And nor does that.
the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'.
How do you get from man-made things - things like screwdrivers and clarinets, which I've already mentioned - to "The universe was purposefully designed by a conscious agent"? This is to commit the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy of assuming that what is true of a part (Human beings in the universe conceive and make things) is true of the whole (The universe was conceived and made). Doesn't fly.
In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case. Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.
"A pretty strong case" to you, but there are reasons for that. Instead of the books you mention, you'd do better to read Stenger on the fallacy of fine tuning as previously mentioned.
-
Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.
That's funny - human assumption, guesswork and extrapolation are exactly what lead people to gods. The counter-arguments are the ones that point out this fact.
-
Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.
That's funny - human assumption, guesswork and extrapolation are exactly what lead people to gods. The counter-arguments are the ones that point out this fact.
What about this extrapolation. Methodological materialism to philosophical naturalism....of course it is nothing of the sort since it is actually a leap of faith since you cannot get from one to another logically or indeed methodologically.
For something which trumpets a methodology so loudly one would
have thought that the lack of one was quite serious.
I don't think there are any sudden conversions here merely drifts from thinking that what one does is the way the world is.
-
*yawn*
-
The existence of ordered laws of nature
Doesn't imply a god. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct there could be a colossal number of universes with their own ordered laws of nature but incapable of supporting life.
the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns
This is part of the fallacy of fine-tuning given a thorough drubbing by the late Victor J. Stenger in his book of that name. Life only exists where it's capable of existing - that's a tautology, but that's also the point; life fits around the conditions in which it's found, not vice versa.
picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something)
This is basically the woeful C.S. Lewis's argument that an idea or desire wouldn't exist unless there's something that corresponds to that idea or that the desire can be fulfilled. This dreadful tripe has been taken apart more times than I can possibly remember and I can refer you to the appropriate sources, save to give the most obvious rebuttal in the form of people who work in the film industry who on a daily basis dream up (and nowadays, with the help of CGI and the like, give form to) things that don't exist. They even call them imagineers.
Where the existence of the concept of gods ultimately came from nobody really knows, but the language typically used - Father; King; Lord and so forth - gives a few interesting pointers. It's another example of extrapolation from the domain where such language makes sense to the domain where it doesn't.
the complexity of natural life
Complexity is complexity is complexity ... and? What of it? Doesn't imply a god.
the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances
And nor does that.
the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'.
How do you get from man-made things - things like screwdrivers and clarinets, which I've already mentioned - to "The universe was purposefully designed by a conscious agent"? This is to commit the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy of assuming that what is true of a part (Human beings in the universe conceive and make things) is true of the whole (The universe was conceived and made). Doesn't fly.
In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case. Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.
"A pretty strong case" to you, but there are reasons for that. Instead of the books you mention, you'd do better to read Stenger on the fallacy of fine tuning as previously mentioned.
Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism, coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.
I found the Stengster quite entertainingly explains why the universe comes from nothing only to reveal that his ''nothing'' was actually an ''unstable'' something. What larks!
-
*yawn*
Hey Shaker.....How do you get from airplanes fly to philosophical naturalism?
-
Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism
Yes, and just look who by ::)
coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.
If I really were an intellectual totalitarian I'd have been able to stop you from wheeling out "philoosophical naturalism" every other post for absolutely no reason.
P.S. Anything by Lewis being "perfectly reasonable" - thanks for the laughs, Vlad ;)
-
*yawn*
Hey Shaker.....How do you get from airplanes fly to philosophical naturalism?
... zzzzz ...
-
Maybe I am being thick or something, but Vlad's posts make as much sense to me as those speaking in tongues, aka gobbledegook! ::)
-
Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.
It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''
Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.
But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.
Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?
But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.
OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions'' but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''. That antitheists wish to hold the inquisitorial position is I would have thought well demonstrated on this forum.
-
Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism
Yes, and just look who by ::)
coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.
If I really were an intellectual totalitarian I'd have been able to stop you from wheeling out "philoosophical naturalism" every other post for absolutely no reason.
P.S. Anything by Lewis being "perfectly reasonable" - thanks for the laughs, Vlad ;)
That's the beauty of intellectual totalitarianism. You can do it all in your head!
-
Maybe I am being thick or something, but Vlad's posts make as much sense to me as those speaking in tongues, aka gobbledegook! ::)
You're not wrong. Instead of being able to construct a logical argument he has his stock words and phrases - "philosophical naturalism"; "intellectual totalitarianism"; "shamanistically" and so forth - which he heard somewhere once, thought they sounded good and has been chucking into every second post ever since.
-
But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.
Saying "We don't know; we're still working on it" is not "baulking"; it's an honest appraisal of the state of affairs and an equally honest refusal to claim certain knowledge where none currently exists - something I'd have thought you would have approved of.
OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions''
So your earlier statement was false, then.
but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''.
Because it makes no sense to ask some questions. For possibly the third time, merely being able to ask a question doesn't imply that it has an answer.
That antitheists wish to hold the inquisitorial position is I would have thought well demonstrated on this forum.
No, only to you, and only because you see any criticism of and challenge to religious ideas as anti-theism, about which you have a raging obsession.
-
So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?
Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.
Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof - again.
So, tell me two things; first, in what way is the force of gravity dependent on 'human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings' and second, do you think that 'why is there gravity' (as opposed to what is gravity) is a valid question to ask?
-
But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.
Saying "We don't know; we're still working on it" is not "baulking";
No but suggesting questions or questioning are impertinent is.
Krauss for example doesn't end his work on why something rather than nothing with ''a don't know'' but a schmoozed ''perhaps we shouldn't ask a question like that''...presumably because a we don't know would have undermined his whole enterprize''.
Dawkins and Russell have definitely stated that questions about the origin of the universe may be impertinent.
-
Did they actually use the word impertinent? As for Krauss, why are you filling in his motivation?
-
Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?
-
Dawkins and Russell have definitely stated that questions about the origin of the universe may be impertinent.
Where? Quotes/links, please.
-
Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?
I fear an endless recursion coming on but I know what you mean, NS :)
-
OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions''
So your earlier statement was false, then.
but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''.
Because it makes no sense to ask some questions. For possibly the third time, merely being able to ask a question doesn't imply that it has an answer.
Firstly No it's not wrong because you are merely asking people politely not to asks those questions. Why want that?
Secondly I'm sure you are right but these are questions like
''Why something and not nothing''. '' What caused the universe''.
These are questions which the great saints of antitheism are inviting us to ''move swiftly on from'' to questions where they think they have more of a chance.
-
Secondly I'm sure you are right but these are questions like
''Why something and not nothing''. '' What caused the universe''.
These are questions which the great saints of antitheism are inviting us to ''move swiftly on from'' to questions where they think they have more of a chance.
If it didn't penetrate the first three times, it's probably not likely to a fourth time and I'm not repeating it again.
-
Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
-
Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
It's a pertinent question to ask of people who think that God is responsible for the universe, most certainly.
-
Why should the question ''where did the universe come from?'' not be pertinent?
-
Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.
-
Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?
I fear an endless recursion coming on but I know what you mean, NS :)
I'm just going out for a moment
Why?
to make a cup of tea.
Why?
because I'm thirsty.
Why?
because it's hot.
Why?
because the sun's shining.
Why?
because it is summer
Why?
because that's when it is.
Why?
why don't you stop saying why?
Why?
Tea-time. That's Why.
High-time-you-stopped-saying-why-time.
What?
Michael Rosen
;) :)
-
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.
-
Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.
The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.
-
Exactly so.
-
Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.
The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.
....And this argument could not be applied to the same questions asked about God?
Looks like you've been caught specially pleading.
-
The other problem that I often see illustrated on here is the continued use of philosophical concepts after removing the base axioms on which they are based. The Kalam is the classic for this which assumes that there is such a thing as a naturalistic approach of cause and effect, and builds that into a philosophical position,but that creates the idea of a first cause which effortlessly kicks away the very ladder that it is built on. It's like a virtual Indian rope trick and has the same validity.
-
Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.
The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.
....And this argument could not be applied to the same questions asked about God?
Looks like you've been caught specially pleading.
See problem already discussed about definition of God here. Indeed it is part of the problem of coming up with a logically coherent definition from some people.
-
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
Since the question can be answered it is a pertinent question.
Similarly the question about where the universe came from is also pertinent since the answer could be it is infinite, eternal and uncreated.
-
And just to pick up Vlad's point on special pleading, he has, as he as a special knack, for managed to get not just the wrong end of the stick but to have ignored the stick, found a blancmange and declared this is the end of the stick I shall talk about.
The problem with phrasing questions on concepts which are not connected to base axioms applies to everything, absolutely everything, no excoetions, no special pleading. The special pleading comes in when people want to talk about things as of those axioms still apply but saying that the axioms do not apply to the thing discussed. When you come across the philosophical 'Here be dragon's you don't cross by assuming that the dragons are cats.
-
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
And that's not special pleading?
-
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
And that's not special pleading?
No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.
I'm surprised Nearly Sane hasn't picked up on your error......bias Nearly?
-
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
Since the question can be answered it is a pertinent question.
Similarly the question about where the universe came from is also pertinent since the answer could be it is infinite, eternal and uncreated.
What does uncreated mean outside of assumed idea of creation and cause and effect. What does any form of existence mean outside of time. What does infinite mean when not related to dimensions. Just putting words next to one and other does not create a logically coherent definition. The verbal leakage you just provided even in its wildest dreams would not manage to get the accolade of 'not even wrong'.
-
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
And that's not special pleading?
No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.
I'm surprised Nearly Sane hasn't picked up on your error......bias Nearly?
Since I hadn't read it, no.
-
No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.
Might be, might not be. I really have absolutely no idea and don't know of anyone else who does either.
The difference with those who think that Goddunnit is that they tend to be rather more assertive and a good deal more rigid about their belief, especially when it comes to others sharing the conclusions that they believe follow from that belief.
Physicists and cosmologists treat these matters as fascinating conundrums, in many (in fact, most) cases still awaiting experimental verification if, and that's a big if, technology ever progresses that far, to be pondered and hotly debated and enjoyed at conferences and meetings hopefully with some good food and a nice bar thrown in.
Those who are convinced beyond all persuasion and argumentation that a god created the universe and has laid down a plan for humanity to follow are significantly, indeed statistically more likely to think that a difference in opinion is worth decapitation.
-
Is the question where did God come from pertinent?
That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.
I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.
Since the question can be answered it is a pertinent question.
Similarly the question about where the universe came from is also pertinent since the answer could be it is infinite, eternal and uncreated.
What does uncreated mean outside of assumed idea of creation and cause and effect. What does any form of existence mean outside of time. What does infinite mean when not related to dimensions. Just putting words next to one and other does not create a logically coherent definition. The verbal leakage you just provided even in its wildest dreams would not manage to get the accolade of 'not even wrong'.
For me Sane you are demonstrating that descriptions break down at the start of the universe as described in the questions antitheists want suppressed... And not only descriptions but philosophical materialism as well.
So Krauss' behaviour and statements should therefore be rightly assessed as attempts to preserve the dogma of philosophical naturalism by the suppression of difficult questions.
-
For me Sane you are demonstrating that descriptions break down at the start of the universe as described in the questions antitheists want suppressed
Bullshit alert! I thought you'd just agreed that "anti-theists" didn't want any questions suppressed?
OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions''
Oh, so you did. Time to make up what you think is your mind, old fruit.
-
No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.
Might be, might not be. I really have absolutely no idea and don't know of anyone else who does either.
The difference with those who think that Goddunnit
But this isn't about them. This is about antitheists doing their uttermost to protect philosophical naturalism by the wrong means.
There are loads of atheists who think that proposing that these big questions shouldn't be asked is wrong.
-
But this isn't about them. This is about antitheists doing their uttermost to protect philosophical naturalism by the wrong means.
There are loads of atheists who think that proposing that these big questions shouldn't be asked is wrong.
Neither do the "anti-theists" who make you wet the bed every night. You just think they do. They don't, but that's because you don't understand what they actually say, substituting for their stated thoughts your own thoughts as to what you think and want them to have said.
-
But essentially what Krauss is saying is that those concepts break down which is why any set of questions beyond those based on axiomatic assumptions break down, and when you cannot use those assumptions there is nothing to be said.
He is again doing the opposite of what you claim.and saying the questions make no sense for everything.
-
But essentially what Krauss is saying is that those concepts break down which is why any set of questions beyond those based on axiomatic assumptions break down, and when you cannot use those assumptions there is nothing to be said.
He is again doing the opposite of what you claim.and saying the questions make no sense for everything.
And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.
If the conclusion of the book is as you say it is ''The impertinence of the question'' then that is surely a devasting one for philosophical naturalism.
But surely he claims a universe has come from nothing as confidently announced in at least the title suggests and ends with the impertinence of the question as the conclusion.
Sounds like a bit of a fail to me with Philosophical Materialism exactly in the position of asking for a miracle and wanting to explain the rest.
-
And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.
...must ... stay ... awake ...
If the conclusion of the book is as you say it is ''The impertinence of the question''
No, that's what you said it is, not NS.
Still waiting for your substantiation of the claim that Russell and Dawkins "definitely" (your word) claimed that asking questions about the origins of the universe is impertinent, by the way.
-
I haven't said anything about impertinence, indeed I pointed out earlier that I don't think it applies as a term here generally.
As for Krauss's nothing, it is used in the specific physics use. It is incorrect for theists and atheists alike to use the term as if it is the wider sense. Indeed there is a philosophical problem with the term nothing if you expand it too far. I am not sure we can sensibly talk about nothing in any sense not related to a concept of not being something.
-
And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.
...must ... stay ... awake ...
Shaker sees the line containing ''devastating consequences or philosophical naturalism'' and closes his eyes.
-
It's the philosophical naturalism bit that always gets me nodding off.
After the first 20,000 times it loses a certain something, you know.
-
I died last week and came back to life, and it was witnessed by 2,000 people.
Unless you have the testimony of the 2,000 people it is meaningless.
Fair point... so lets say that a small percentage of the population is able to write. So if 5000 people were saved on the day of Pentecost and out of that 5000, 2000 had witnessed a previous miracle and out of those 2000 only 100 were able to write... realistically we would expect a handful of accounts to be selected as the 'canon' of the Church. Again, if those miracles did not happen we would expect to have documentary evidence discreditting the New Testament.
-
I haven't said anything about impertinence, indeed I pointed out earlier that I don't think it applies as a term here generally.
As for Krauss's nothing, it is used in the specific physics use. It is incorrect for theists and atheists alike to use the term as if it is the wider sense. Indeed there is a philosophical problem with the term nothing if you expand it too far. I am not sure we can sensibly talk about nothing in any sense not related to a concept of not being something.
I realise that since I have previously said that a physicists nothing is really an ''unstable something''.
Are you saying that ''nothing'' in any sense is ''something?''
It seems that there are startling consequences for philosophical naturalism here and you are pussy footing around them.
-
It's the philosophical naturalism bit that always gets me nodding off.
After the first 20,000 times it loses a certain something, you know.
Don't worry, I think NearlySane is in the process of skewering it or may have done so and surrounded his demolition in so much convolution in the hope that we haven't noticed.
-
As we've been shown again today on this very thread, what you think and what is actually the case are usually always at very great variance indeed.
Any movement on those Russell and Dawkins quotes yet?
-
As we've been shown again today on this very thread, what you think and what is actually the case are usually always at very great variance indeed.
Any movement on those Russell and Dawkins quotes yet?
The only movement I've experienced today Shaker is the normal clenching feeling in the arse one gets when they read your posts.
-
Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.
-
Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.
Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.
{5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.
-
As often written before I am not a PNist (and yes, before anyone says anything the homophones are deliberate), so I am not pussy footing around anything. I think it like the logical realists it falls to the Godel problem and, specifically to the Wittgenstein challenge on language.
The problem with that though your position too is effortlessly skewered by that and what you end up with is having seen through your branch, down on the dead ground with me. That's OK if you want to be a relativist but it leaves you nowhere.
-
Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.
Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.
{5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.
Why apparently? Having made the claim shouldn't you know?
I notice that the words you attribute to Russell nowhere feature the word 'impertinent.'
-
Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.
Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.
{5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.
Why apparently? Having made the claim shouldn't you know?
I notice that the words you attribute to Russell nowhere feature the word 'impertinent.'
Alas and alack IT IS in that book since it is a transcript of the BBC interview carried out by Copleston.
Of course if Russell is stating that any questions on the origin of the universe are not pertinent....they maybe impertinent.
-
Dawkins in the God Delusion
''it is "more parsimonious to conjure up, say a 'big bang singularity' ".
-
Alas and alack IT IS in that book since it is a transcript of the BBC interview carried out by Copleston.
Fortunately I don't need Hick's book to check the source; I already have it. The debate between Russell and Father Frederick Copleston (not an interview of the former by the latter) was quite famous in its day. It was broadcast on what was then known as the BBC's Third Programme in 1948. I have a full transcript in my copy of Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and other essays on religion and related subjects* which I've just checked. The word 'impertinent' is not to be found.
Bad luck Vlad ;)
Of course if Russell is stating that any questions on the origin of the universe are not pertinent....they maybe impertinent.
Why 'if' and 'may be' all of a sudden Vlad? Earlier this morning it was 'definitely.'
I'll give you this much Vlad: when it comes to getting things not merely wrong but the polar opposite of what is the case, you're the gift that keeps on giving ;)
* London; Routledge; 1996; pp. 133-153.
-
Dawkins in the God Delusion
''it is "more parsimonious to conjure up, say a 'big bang singularity' ".
Very nice, but this 'impertinence' which you allege he charges about asking questions of the universe's origin? Where's that?
-
Dawkins in the God Delusion
''it is "more parsimonious to conjure up, say a 'big bang singularity' ".
Very nice, but this 'impertinence' which you allege he charges about asking questions of the universe's origin? Where's that?
I recall it in the ''criticisms'' of Dawkins section on his Wikipedia page but alas that section seems no longer to be there.
-
Never mind ;)
-
Never mind ;)
You're right....I suppose we should just rejoice that nobody criticises the Doctor any more.....
-
Nobody should rejoice when criticism ceases; it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You would think the guy was wrongly pronounced dead!
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You seem to be confusing what was written down 20 years after, with what survives is dated to 20 years after.
The point is what appears in what survives dated to 20 years after is a letter written to an established orthodox Christian community.
The way you present it it looks as though this established community was invented 20 years after.
Why did the roman and jewish authorities not conclusively establish a hoax at the time?
-
As pointed out previously, the very mentions of Christians by non biblical sources used by Christians to back up the historicity of Jesus, show no real understanding of the resurrection or any thought given to the idea of 'disproving'. If you want to claim those as useful in the sense of historicity, then they completely undermine the argument about it being something they were trying to disprove
-
As pointed out previously, the very mentions of Christians by non biblical sources used by Christians to back up the historicity of Jesus, show no real understanding of the resurrection or any thought given to the idea of 'disproving'. If you want to claim those as useful in the sense of historicity, then they completely undermine the argument about it being something they were trying to disprove
Eh?
-
What are struggling to get? The non biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus show no hint of any understanding of the claims about resurrection never mind any thoughts of disproving it.
-
What are struggling to get? The non biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus show no hint of any understanding of the claims about resurrection never mind any thoughts of disproving it.
Why didn't you say?
-
I did. Perhaps it just takes you to read things more often.
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You seem to be confusing what was written down 20 years after, with what survives is dated to 20 years after.
The point is what appears in what survives dated to 20 years after is a letter written to an established orthodox Christian community.
The way you present it it looks as though this established community was invented 20 years after.
Why did the roman and jewish authorities not conclusively establish a hoax at the time?
I haven't mentioned any established community so I fail to see what your main point is.
As far as the Roman and Jewish authorities not looking into a hoax is concerned, they didn't even know about this resurrection story - no one other than JCs followers knew so others couldn't read about it until at least 20 years later - so there was no need to look into any hoax story.
If the Romans had known, the history books would mention it. There are plenty of facts about the Roman occupation long before JCs time.
-
What are struggling to get? The non biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus show no hint of any understanding of the claims about resurrection never mind any thoughts of disproving it.
Tacitus annals source Wikipedia.
'' Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.''
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You seem to be confusing what was written down 20 years after, with what survives is dated to 20 years after.
The point is what appears in what survives dated to 20 years after is a letter written to an established orthodox Christian community.
The way you present it it looks as though this established community was invented 20 years after.
Why did the roman and jewish authorities not conclusively establish a hoax at the time?
I haven't mentioned any established community so I fail to see what your main point is.
As far as the Roman and Jewish authorities not looking into a hoax is concerned, they didn't even know about this resurrection story - no one other than JCs followers knew so others couldn't read about it until at least 20 years later - so there was no need to look into any hoax story.
If the Romans had known, the history books would mention it. There are plenty of facts about the Roman occupation long before JCs time.
No one other than JC's followers knew the story of the resurrection? That is unlikely because a) It must have been preached as there is no explanation for established communities.
I think Tacitus's comment as follows put's a question mark that the story of the resurrection was not known or that there were no attempt to discredit it.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You seem to be confusing what was written down 20 years after, with what survives is dated to 20 years after.
The point is what appears in what survives dated to 20 years after is a letter written to an established orthodox Christian community.
The way you present it it looks as though this established community was invented 20 years after.
Why did the roman and jewish authorities not conclusively establish a hoax at the time?
I haven't mentioned any established community so I fail to see what your main point is.
As far as the Roman and Jewish authorities not looking into a hoax is concerned, they didn't even know about this resurrection story - no one other than JCs followers knew so others couldn't read about it until at least 20 years later - so there was no need to look into any hoax story.
If the Romans had known, the history books would mention it. There are plenty of facts about the Roman occupation long before JCs time.
No one other than JC's followers knew the story of the resurrection? That is unlikely because a) It must have been preached as there is no explanation for established communities.
I think Tacitus's comment as follows put's a question mark that the story of the resurrection was not known or that there were no attempt to discredit it.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
The Romans looked on the sect the same way as we look on such sects these days - troublemakers! They certainly wouldn't have taken any resurrection story any more seriously than we do today .... with notable exceptions, of course!
-
... ;it's preferable when it's based on accurate reportage though.
Such as when some people criticise the New Testament, for instance. Claims such as the documentary evidence didn't appear until 'decades after' the events, for instance. After all, documentation doesn't have to be in a written form, though in our highly literate society, we tend to assume it will.
It is amazing that you are quite content for a claim of this enormity (a guy coming back from being dead for three days) written down 20 years after the alleged event, by people you have no idea as to their integrity or motive, and with just alleged sightings and empty tombs as evidence ...
And yet if in a newspaper this morning, you read of a guy coming back from the dead in a hospital bed in London yesterday, after being dead for ten hours, you'd wonder if it was a hoax!
Strange what confirmation bias will do to a believer's mind!
You seem to be confusing what was written down 20 years after, with what survives is dated to 20 years after.
The point is what appears in what survives dated to 20 years after is a letter written to an established orthodox Christian community.
The way you present it it looks as though this established community was invented 20 years after.
Why did the roman and jewish authorities not conclusively establish a hoax at the time?
I haven't mentioned any established community so I fail to see what your main point is.
As far as the Roman and Jewish authorities not looking into a hoax is concerned, they didn't even know about this resurrection story - no one other than JCs followers knew so others couldn't read about it until at least 20 years later - so there was no need to look into any hoax story.
If the Romans had known, the history books would mention it. There are plenty of facts about the Roman occupation long before JCs time.
No one other than JC's followers knew the story of the resurrection? That is unlikely because a) It must have been preached as there is no explanation for established communities.
I think Tacitus's comment as follows put's a question mark that the story of the resurrection was not known or that there were no attempt to discredit it.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
The Romans looked on the sect the same way as we look on such sects these days - troublemakers! They certainly wouldn't have taken any resurrection story any more seriously than we do today .... with notable exceptions, of course!
Apart from calling it a most meschiebious superstition and they must have taken it seriously for it to be ''checked''. you now agree that they might have known about it!
-
'meschiebious'?
-
What are struggling to get? The non biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus show no hint of any understanding of the claims about resurrection never mind any thoughts of disproving it.
Tacitus annals source Wikipedia.
'' Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.''
So nothing about resurrection- told you to read things more often.
-
Vlad
The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!
-
Vlad
The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!
One wouldn't believe that ghastly creature, Palin, full stop! ::)
-
Vlad
The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!
Jjohnjil. Well we hear from Tacitus that the 'mischievious superstition' was 'checked'. Tacitus was a Roman official and may have understood the word 'checked' as official government terms. He also comments that the belief, whatever it was escaped it's checking and that that was somehow a problem for the Roman Authorities.
We seem to have come away from the Romans having no knowledge of the resurrection.
The question remains why was the resurrection not exposed successfully as a hoax by the Roman or indeed Jewish authorities?
-
Vlad
The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!
Wow.....where did Sarah Palin come from?
-
Vlad
The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!
Wow.....where did Sarah Palin come from?
Vlad
Why is it you do everything except argue the point in hand! Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours?
Thinking about it though, you probably would!
-
Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated
-
Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated
Who are you talking to?
-
The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings. There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine. It does not refer to the resurrection.
-
Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours?
Thinking about it though, you probably would!
jjohn, this and similar questions have been posed several times on this forum over the years. The answer from all the Christians here has been the same: If there had never been any claim by Jo (more politically correct ;)) Bloggs that s/he was divine, of course we wouldn't. Even if s/he had thus claimed, we would feel it appropriate to investigate the claim before making a decision one way or the other - especially as such an event has already been recorded in history and not only was the existing claim of divinity already there, the person who claimed divinity back then stated that this was a once for all event.
-
Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated
Does it? Surely if had been 'checked' in the sense you mean, Christianity would not have existed 300-odd years later to be taken on board as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and the likes of Jim, Alien and I - not to mention ~TW~ and Sass - wouldn't be posting here in the way we do.
-
The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings. There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine. It does not refer to the resurrection.
However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.
-
The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings. There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine. It does not refer to the resurrection.
However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.
Christianity.
-
The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings. There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine. It does not refer to the resurrection.
However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.
Christianity.
Yuuuuuuusss.......But why is it the ''mischievious superstition''?
-
Vlad, stop JAQing off. If you want to make a point, FFS make it.
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
Alas, no :(
Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.
-
Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours?
Thinking about it though, you probably would!
jjohn, this and similar questions have been posed several times on this forum over the years. The answer from all the Christians here has been the same: If there had never been any claim by Jo (more politically correct ;)) Bloggs that s/he was divine, of course we wouldn't. Even if s/he had thus claimed, we would feel it appropriate to investigate the claim before making a decision one way or the other - especially as such an event has already been recorded in history and not only was the existing claim of divinity already there, the person who claimed divinity back then stated that this was a once for all event.
Are you really saying that had Jo claimed he/she was divine, you would investigate that claim? Really? And how would you convince yourself that he/she wasn't a very good magician or a hoaxer or a con man? And more to the point, how have you investigated this 2000+ year old claim?
I'm pretty sure that all Jo/Joe's claims would be immediately dismissed by your good self, Hope, without ever looking any further! At least, I hope you're not that gullible!
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
Alas, no :(
Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.
Argumentum ad particular populum.
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
Alas, no :(
Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.
Argumentum ad particular populum.
Nope, fact!
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
Alas, no :(
Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.
Argumentum ad particular populum.
No. It would have been the argumentum ad populum if I'd tried to make a case that Christianity is untrue because adherence to it is dying out in the developed world - it's the because bit that makes the fallacy. That would have been a fallacious argument; Hope has already accused me of emplying the logical fallacy of negative proof/argument from-appeal to ignorance and I've asked him for evidence of where and when I have done this. So far, no dice.
(Alan Burns provided an absolutely gob-smackingly classic example of this specific fallacy not long ago*, but of course we're not going to expect Hope to raise this with him).
As it is, all I stated was simply a matter of demonstrable fact (and my opinion about that fact).
ETA: As Lenny has just also pointed out. Hola, Len! :D
* http://goo.gl/b3si1l
-
Christianity.
But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around? In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?
Alas, no :(
Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.
Argumentum ad particular populum.
No. It would have been the argumentum ad populum if I'd tried to make a case that Christianity is untrue because adherence to it is dying out in the developed world - it's the because bit that makes the fallacy. That would have been a fallacious argument; Hope has already accused me of emplying the logical fallacy of negative proof/argument from-appeal to ignorance and I've asked him for evidence of where and when I have done this. So far, no dice.
(Alan Burns provided an absolutely gob-smackingly classic example of this specific fallacy not long ago*, but of course we're not going to expect Hope to raise this with him).
As it is, all I stated was simply a matter of demonstrable fact (and my opinion about that fact).
ETA: As Lenny has just also pointed out. Hola, Len! :D
* http://goo.gl/b3si1l
In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.
-
In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.
Probably it does Vlad, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no religion can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression or atheism or what you (for some reason) call anti-theism, but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy ;)
Britain isn't a nation of atheists save in the purely practical sense; they're a nation of apatheists and ignostics. The USA is going the same way, better late than never.
-
In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.
Probably it does Vlad, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no religion can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression or atheism or what you (for some reason) call anti-theism, but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy ;)
Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy ;)
-
Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy ;)
Since the apathy about anti-theism also extends to apathy about religion, I'm delighted to see it prevail :D
-
Vlad, stop JAQing off. If you want to make a point, FFS make it.
Well, thus far chunsty has put 11,000+ posts on here plus a no longer determinable amount from the auntie days and he hasn't made a point yet...
...you're just just one of life's optimists aren't you wiggie.
-
Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy ;)
Since the apathy about anti-theism also extends to apathy about religion, I'm delighted to see it prevail :D
Alas and alack the number of hits for Richard Dawkins Websites is a pale shadow of what it was.
-
Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise. However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'. In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question. Why? Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions. As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories. Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?
On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'? We know how hurricanes form, we could in theory with a large enough computer explain how particular people emerge unscathed whilst other people ten feet away are killed in an instant - there's nothing, though, to suggest that there's a 'why' to that incident.
Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.
O.
-
Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated
Does it? Surely if had been 'checked' in the sense you mean, Christianity would not have existed 300-odd years later to be taken on board as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and the likes of Jim, Alien and I - not to mention ~TW~ and Sass - wouldn't be posting here in the way we do.
If I check the advancement of something, it does not mean it is stopped forever. It is the only sense of checked that makes any sense in context. That said, I'll dig out my Tacitus at some stage and have a look at the Latin.
ETA: while I look at it note that it continues 'broke out again later'
ETA2: the latin is 'repressa' so it is the sense of check that is clear, as I pointed out, in the English translation
-
It seems to read as though the initial 'checking' happened when Christ was executed under Pilate, so perhaps the mischievous superstition was Jesus' claim to be the Son of God?
-
It seems to read as though the initial 'checking' happened when Christ was executed under Pilate, so perhaps the mischievous superstition was Jesus' claim to be the Son of God?
I think it is simpler to read it as a general description of the set of beliefs rather than anything specific. The reading you suggest makes very little sense in the Rome of the time.
-
There also seems to me to be a lot of rather 'modern' thinking from people who would assume that Roman authorities or, indeed, Jewish ones would think in the methood of trying to 'disprove' religious claims by pursuing something physical such as producing a body. (That is leaving aside that we have no non biblical representations that they were aware of the claim of resurrection).
-
The Romans of the time were polytheists - the Roman pantheon had space for who knows how many gods, and the idea of a regional 'hero' being brought back from the dead would not have been out of keeping with their own competing deities sponsoring their own personal heros.
Time and Christian domination of culture has led to Jesus being depicted as more significant to modern society than, say, Orpheus or Osiris, but there's no reason to think the Roman authorities would categorise the stories differently.
The adherents of the stories, perhaps, but not the stories themselves.
O.
-
It should be noted that Judaism was also a 'superstition' to the Romans in that it was a bleief that couldn't easily be assimilated into their existing practices. This would be true also about the worship of Isis originally which was prevalent amongst the lowest classes, like Christianity, but eventually was recognised by Caligula. In its earlier stages, it was subject to a fair amount of persecution, though this was in all likelihood mainly political.
-
The Romans of the time were polytheists - the Roman pantheon had space for who knows how many gods, and the idea of a regional 'hero' being brought back from the dead would not have been out of keeping with their own competing deities sponsoring their own personal heros.
Do you have any actual examples of this, O? Or is it a modern take on Roman religious thinking?
Time and Christian domination of culture has led to Jesus being depicted as more significant to modern society than, say, Orpheus or Osiris, but there's no reason to think the Roman authorities would categorise the stories differently.
Perhaps you can explain why the Roman authorities decided to plump for Christianity over these other belief systems. It wouldn't seem that the 'Christian domination of culture' would have influenced them, since that likely didn't begin to occur until the second half of the 1st millennium.
-
On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?
Well, one reason is linguistics. As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.
Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.
Do you have any evidence to show this?
-
On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?
Well, one reason is linguistics. As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.
Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.
Do you have any evidence to show this?
Quite extraordinary, an appeal to nature, combined with an appeal to authority (in this case your own - a fascinating habit) and a misunderstanding of linguistics which you are appealing to. Dense dense fail.
-
Indeed, NS. He's very long on demanding evidence from others, yet simultaneously short - putting it mildly - on answering questions put to him.
-
On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?
Well, one reason is linguistics. As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.
How does your religion answer any of these so called why questions then? And how can we test the answers to make sure they are right?
Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.
Do you have any evidence to show this?
Of course he does. The Theory of Evolution id about as solid as a scientific theory can be and its mechanism admits of no intelligence.
Come on, tell us how your religion answers the "why" questions.
-
On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?
Well, one reason is linguistics. As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.
Where is your evidence for this?
Oh, sorry, I forgot.
-
There also seems to me to be a lot of rather 'modern' thinking from people who would assume that Roman authorities or, indeed, Jewish ones would think in the methood of trying to 'disprove' religious claims by pursuing something physical such as producing a body. (That is leaving aside that we have no non biblical representations that they were aware of the claim of resurrection).
Fair point, all I can find is this:
In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)
- See more at: http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm#sthash.1GjaoLnE.dpuf
No indication that he knew of the resurrection claims. But there is still the question of why the early Christians rounded up by Nero were executed. Presumably they could have denied being Christians and avoided death (in the same way described above). That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
-
Where is your evidence for this?
Oh, sorry, I forgot.
Let's take a couple of fairly well-known concepts.
1) a person's sexuality: The first known use of homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. (David Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Routledge, 1990, page 15). I think that we would all acknowledge that the concept of homosexuality had been around for decades, if not centuries, before this first use of it in English, which was about 25 years later than it's use in German.
2) the microscope: The name "Microscope" which some claim was invented by Giovanni Faber was only in common use from the 1650s. (http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/museyeum/online_exhibitions/microscopy/early.cfm). However, simple mechanisms that performed the role of microscopes had been around since the first century AD, and the first items that were recognisably 'microscopes' appeared in the 1590s.
If you and I have a conversation, and you use a word that I don't recognise/know, I can only learn what that word means if I already have the concept that it describes within my experience.
I could take up huge swathes of board bandwidth giving other examples, but I won't since this is a widely acknowledged phenomenon.
-
That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
No it doesn't.
-
Well, one reason is linguistics. As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.
My thought patterns suggest that when I see something from the corner of my eye I flinch away and cover my face in case it's an attack. That doesn't meant that, after that initial reaction, I still have to presume that it was valid to think there was an attack.
My wife's thought patterns are such that she is afraid of spiders - she knows, rationally, that the spiders are not a threat, but nevertheless she is afraid.
Our thought patterns are only partially rational and under our control - that we have a trained speech pattern to use the word 'why' and to presume conscious intention in actions doesn't mean that, on reflection, that presumption is valid.
Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.
Do you have any evidence to show this?
How would I produce evidence for something that I'm saying isn't there? The lack of evidence for a guiding intelligence is the reason I reject the proposition of a guiding intelligence. The lack of any evidence for prerequisite goals is the reason I reject the proposition.
O.
-
No indication that he knew of the resurrection claims. But there is still the question of why the early Christians rounded up by Nero were executed. Presumably they could have denied being Christians and avoided death (in the same way described above). That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
No it doesn't! It simply proves that many people believed them to be true. That's all they died for ... their belief.
-
That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
No it doesn't.
*headdesk*
It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken; and (c) Alien completely ignores the point and utterly fails to take it on board.
-
That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
No it doesn't.
*headdesk*
It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken; and (c) Alien completely ignores the point and utterly fails to take it on board.
Yep - I've gone down the same road but it appears that they all have a mental block when it comes to reconising the possibility that their revered early Christians were just as likely to be fallible as anyone else (before or since).
I suppose it is the fear that the already wobbly tower of Jenga blocks that is Christianity will collapse if the merest scintilla of doubt is allowed to creep in - although I think myself it collapsed long ago, and now lies haphazardly strewn upon the coffee table of reality.
-
LOL yes! ;D
-
That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.
No it doesn't.
*headdesk*
It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken;
And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die. So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him. A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.
-
And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die.
Can we? How does that work, then?
So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.
What's 'obvious' about it? You believe the suicide bomber is wrong; he believed he was right.
I would have to assume that you are an absolute pacifist, since killing people in time of war entails killing people who have done nothing to you personally.
A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.
I have no idea what the relevance of this is to anything.
-
And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die.
By what method can we do this?
So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.
And is still prepared to die for their cause, which you presumably think less worthy compared with Christians doing the same thing.
A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.
So?
All you've really demonstrated here is that being prepared to die for a cause is known human behaviour that isn't exclusive to early Christians - and we knew that anyway..
-
And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die. So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.
To his eyes (presumably) they have wronged a god in some way, and therefore he's right. He's only 'obviously mistaken' if you believe that your unevidenced claim about what any gods might want is luckily closer to the truth than his.
In what way is Islamic Jihadism 'obviously wrong'? God says to them, in their holy book, that they must kill the infidels where they find them (not intended as a direct translation, by the way!)?
I question the validity of holy books at all, but if you stand truck by them why is his wrong and yours right? Why is his interpretation wrong but your interpretation - which differs from others - right?
O.
-
This reminds me of someone I knew, a Christian, who was pretty good at fighting. He told me he had hit a guy at the bar who had been making trouble for him while he was chatting up a girl. Nothing particuarly amazing about that. When he came across a drug dealer beating up lads in Hackney, though, he would intervene and beat up the dealer. But after I had known him a few months he said to me that when something like that happened again he had decided to simply stand between the dealer and the lad and say, I'm a Christian.
So what is he saying when he says 'I'm a Christian'? 'You should not be beating up this kid, you can beat me up instead'. That is more likely to have an impact on the dealer than simply beating him up.
When we were talking about what careers we had chosen, I suggested that he would have been suited to the army. Now given his ability to defend other people using fairly lethal self defense techniques, I really thought I was right. He took me by surprise when he said, 'what, and kill people?'
This is the difference between 'love your neighbour, hate your enemy' and 'love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you'.
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
Nope - that some people have insight regarding situations they should ideally avoid on a personal basis given their temperament, so as to avoid problems, is a human attribute and is no great surprise: neither is it any great surprise that others in a similar situtaion may be less insightful.
It's just people being people Spud: applied biology.
-
This reminds me of someone I knew, a Christian, who was pretty good at fighting. He told me he had hit a guy at the bar who had been making trouble for him while he was chatting up a girl. Nothing particuarly amazing about that. When he came across a drug dealer beating up lads in Hackney, though, he would intervene and beat up the dealer. But after I had known him a few months he said to me that when something like that happened again he had decided to simply stand between the dealer and the lad and say, I'm a Christian.
So what is he saying when he says 'I'm a Christian'? 'You should not be beating up this kid, you can beat me up instead'. That is more likely to have an impact on the dealer than simply beating him up.
When we were talking about what careers we had chosen, I suggested that he would have been suited to the army. Now given his ability to defend other people using fairly lethal self defense techniques, I really thought I was right. He took me by surprise when he said, 'what, and kill people?'
This is the difference between 'love your neighbour, hate your enemy' and 'love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you'.
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
What point are you trying to make? How do we know the Jihadist isn't doing God's will?
-
Gordon,
If he had avoided those situations, people would continue to be beaten up and he would have done nothing to help.
Jeremy
What I'm saying is that being willing to suffer will produce more good than inflicting suffering on others.
I should add that on subsequent occasions this guy's self-preservation instincts did kick in and he ended up running very fast away from the bullies, while drawing them away from their victims.
And this is a very simplified version of what actually happened.
-
Gordan,
If he had avoided those situations, people would continue to be beaten up and he would have done nothing to help.
So what?
He is an altruistic person who has the insight, confidence and persona to calm stressful situations: some people are like that.
-
Gordan,
If he had avoided those situations, people would continue to be beaten up and he would have done nothing to help.
So what?
He is an altruistic person who has the insight, confidence and persona to calm stressful situations: some people are like that.
True, and whereas he did have a tendency to make one feel guilty that one wasn't like him, he would say that everybody has the ability to help someone in trouble, at some cost to themselves, and that nobody is exempt from the duty to do so.
-
Gordan,
If he had avoided those situations, people would continue to be beaten up and he would have done nothing to help.
So what?
He is an altruistic person who has the insight, confidence and persona to calm stressful situations: some people are like that.
True, and whereas he did have a tendency to make one feel guilty that one wasn't like him, he would say that everybody has the ability to help someone in trouble, at some cost to themselves, and that nobody is exempt from the duty to do so.
So we agree that socially responsible people should try to act responsibly, and in doing they may use strategies that best suit their personal characteristics- and?
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
Can you stop using the word proved like cheap perfume?
-
Jeremy
What I'm saying is that being willing to suffer will produce more good than inflicting suffering on others.
How do you know it isn't good to kill infidels?
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
Stories, Spud - don't believe everything you read, and especially since your confirmation bias is showing.
As for your use of 'prove' - you can't be serious.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
Can you stop using the word proved like cheap perfume?
Maybe demonstrated would have been better.
Sorry about the terrible grammar there. The whole post needs re-writing.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
A moderate Christian is one who has a live and let live approach to their faith, and doesn't force it down the throats of others, they let their deeds do the talking.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
Or 'know'. None of them know anything ... it's all merely what they believe.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
I thought you would have got it from context - in this instance you can take it to mean anyone who believes but doesn't think that religion should be distributed over the dead bodies of the unbelievers.
O.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
I thought you would have got it from context - in this instance you can take it to mean anyone who believes but doesn't think that religion should be distributed over the dead bodies of the unbelievers.
O.
Thanks for clarifying. To answer your question, which seems to be relevant to the point about dying for a belief that is mistaken/untrue:
The jihadist inflicts wounds on himself. A parallel can be seen with the prophets of baal in 1 Kings 18:21. They cut themselves hoping their god would answer them. A true prophet, such as Abel (note Jesus refers to him as a prophet, Luke 11:50-51) has wounds that are inflicted on himself by others.
-
Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?
No-one is conflating those two, Spud. We know - and have our preferences - the differences between fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) and 'moderate' believers.
The question, though, is how do you know that the moderates are right and God disagrees with the Jihadists?
O.
Not sure what you mean by a moderate?
I thought you would have got it from context - in this instance you can take it to mean anyone who believes but doesn't think that religion should be distributed over the dead bodies of the unbelievers.
O.
Thanks for clarifying. To answer your question, which seems to be relevant to the point about dying for a belief that is mistaken/untrue:
The jihadist inflicts wounds on himself. A parallel can be seen with the prophets of baal in 1 Kings 18:21. They cut themselves hoping their god would answer them. A true prophet, such as Abel (note Jesus refers to him as a prophet, Luke 11:50-51) has wounds that are inflicted on himself by others.
Just because Jesus supposedly referred to the not so nice Abel as a 'prophet, doesn't mean it was true!
-
Thanks for clarifying. To answer your question, which seems to be relevant to the point about dying for a belief that is mistaken/untrue:
The jihadist inflicts wounds on himself. A parallel can be seen with the prophets of baal in 1 Kings 18:21. They cut themselves hoping their god would answer them. A true prophet, such as Abel (note Jesus refers to him as a prophet, Luke 11:50-51) has wounds that are inflicted on himself by others.
That's your interpretation of scripture - personally, it's one I prefer, but I have no means to determine if it's any more or less valid. So, even if I were to suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that scripture had some sort of divine mandate, how am I supposed to tell which of you is actually doing a god's work, and which of you isn't?
O.
-
Just because Jesus supposedly referred to the not so nice Abel as a 'prophet, doesn't mean it was true!
Abel was the victim, not the murderer.
-
Just because Jesus supposedly referred to the not so nice Abel as a 'prophet, doesn't mean it was true!
Abel was the victim, not the murderer.
In the fable Cain supposedly killed Abel, but whist I don't condone murder at all, I think Cain was provoked by his goody two shoes brother!
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
Can you stop using the word proved like cheap perfume?
Maybe demonstrated would have been better.
Sorry about the terrible grammar there. The whole post needs re-writing.
Doesn't really help - it claims a method - you don't have one
-
Just because Jesus supposedly referred to the not so nice Abel as a 'prophet, doesn't mean it was true!
Abel was the victim, not the murderer.
In the fable Cain supposedly killed Abel, but whist I don't condone murder at all, I think Cain was provoked by his goody two shoes brother!
Well, not really. It was God that accepted Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's. It was also God that had the silly rule not to accept crops as a sacrifice.
This one, like many others is definitely God's fault.
-
quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.
In Luke's account, Jesus meets the disciples and then goes out to Bethany and ascends to heaven. In John's account, he doesn't do this. In fact he returns the next week and then appears in Galilee later.
Matthew's account of what happened in Galilee is totally different to John's.
These re not accounts of the same events just because they happened in the same places.
This was discussed on another thread. I posted there http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10537.msg535691#msg535691, but I don't seem to have had any reply. I'd be interested in your thoughts. The main part of my post is as follows:
The end of Luke has a significant textual variant where the original reading of Sinaiticus does not have "and was taken up into heaven." Ehrman thinks this was added later by orthodox scribes as a means of arguing against Docetists. However, the N27 committee give that phrase a B for certainty, i.e. there is "some degree of doubt". Let's look at whether it is troublesome for the orthodox view whether it is original and whether it is not original.
If it is not part of the original text, that is handy, in one sense, as it then removes any claim about Luke saying Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of his resurrection and leaves the actual timing of it to Luke's second document, the Book of Acts. That would be very convenient.
If it is part of the original text, then it leaves us with the question of whether 24:50, 51 says that Jesus did ascend to heaven on the day of his resurrection. The Greek is not as clear about as, say, the NIV English text. The NIV says, "When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven." The Greek, literally, says, "He led them out as far as Bethany and having raised his hands, he blessed them and it happened in his blessing the he parted from them and was carried into heaven". There is a δε at the start of 24:50 which is sometimes translated "and", but it is often not even translated into English.
I am not saying that 24:50, 51 cannot be read as Jesus ascending to heaven that same day, but there is some doubt about whether it does refer to the ascension at all (as Ehrman would argue) and it is not compelling that it even refers to the same day even if it does refer to the ascension.
Thus the only clear description of the actual ascension is in Acts 1.
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
-
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't.
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
-
...
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...
O.
Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
If you did, in the same manner, then your victim would probably die, and having died remain dead - as would have been the case with Jesus (assuming he was actually crucified).
The problem here is your continued assumption that these tales of post-death interaction are actually true: how have you addressed the risk of propaganda?
-
...
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...
O.
Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?
How about some where the risks of mistakes or lies have been demonstrably resolved without recourse to special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.
-
...
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...
O.
Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?
Er no in the sense of corroboration you are using here that is incorrect.
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
Still punting claims as facts in your normal lying manner.
Why is it that you lie like this continually?
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
And I've still got a vat of poison and some snakes for you to drink and get bitten by. Once you've done that, you can nail me to as many crosses as you like.
-
And, so I guess by sticking to their story about Jesus having proved he was the only son of God, the first Christians were proving that the gods of the Romans were false gods. Yet it cost them, and this is the pattern we see when someone sticks up for truth.
Can you stop using the word proved like cheap perfume?
Maybe demonstrated would have been better.
Sorry about the terrible grammar there. The whole post needs re-writing.
Doesn't really help - it claims a method - you don't have one
Try Romans 1:4.
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
The message the disciples died proclaiming was that Jesus is the promised (2 Samuel 7:13, Psalm 2) king of the world, superior to the Romans' imaginary deities, also. What convinced them, according to Paul here, was the resurrection. He had conquered death and was alive forever.
Now another question, what could enable them to accept and even embrace death? Oh yes, seeing visible evidence of life after death. 'To live is Christ, to die is gain'. And what will convince me they were not mistaken or lying? They allowed themselves to be killed and did not fight to avoid death, so that we would see that they were fully expecting to live again.
Now the jihadist/suicide bomber also expects to live again; however, he will face punishment because he has allowed himself to follow the path of evil.
Off to let a fly out the window.
-
People die for things all the time. Not a method.
-
Try Romans 1:4.
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Try not believing everything you read.
The message the disciples died proclaiming was that Jesus is the promised (2 Samuel 7:13, Psalm 2) king of the world, superior to the Romans' imaginary deities, also. What convinced them, according to Paul here, was the resurrection. He had conquered death and was alive forever.
So the story goes: I hear Sherlock Holmes played the violin!
Now another question, what could enable them to accept and even embrace death? Oh yes, seeing visible evidence of life after death. 'To live is Christ, to die is gain'. And what will convince me they were not mistaken or lying? They allowed themselves to be killed and did not fight to avoid death, so that we would see that they were fully expecting to live again.
They could be credulous victims of effective propaganda: how have you ruled this out (as opposed to just ignoring the possibility)?
Now the jihadist/suicide bomber also expects to live again; however, he will face punishment because he has allowed himself to follow the path of evil.
How do you know this to be the case?
Off to let a fly out the window.
Good for you.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
-
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
It's easy, they do it by the power of fiction.
-
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
According to Luke's gospel, the ascension happens pretty much the same day as the resurrection. Try reading it without your preconceptions about what happened.
-
People die for things all the time. Not a method.
People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie.
.......
The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
-
They could be credulous victims of effective propaganda: how have you ruled this out (as opposed to just ignoring the possibility)?
They (the disciples) were the ones who started it though. How could they be victims of it at the same time?
-
But it isn't clear that anyone died because they believed in the resurrection. Rather they died because they believed in something that was seen as not acceptable to authorities which on the case of Rome show no knowledge or caring about any idea of a resurrection and of those who die most would not have seen anything. Further people will happily die for things they do not fully accept if they think it is an overall good, see wartime.
Again there is no method in the article, it is a gussied up argument by incredulity.
-
They could be credulous victims of effective propaganda: how have you ruled this out (as opposed to just ignoring the possibility)?
They (the disciples) were the ones who started it though. How could they be victims of it at the same time?
Were they? All of them? In any event we know that 2/3 dead people really do stay dead so it is a fair bet that there must something else going on here that resulted in the preposterous claim that Jesus didn't stay dead.
Being committed to a cause (religious or otherwise) and placing yourself at risk is known human behaviour whether this involves being mistakenly sincere or is deliberate propaganda - and some people are credulous enough to be susceptible to either of these. This is a particular problem when the cause, as in this case, involves a mix of religious superstitions, cultural traditions and impossible claims that are irrational by all reasonable standards.
-
...
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...
O.
Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?
No, we have one claim, which claims those corroborations.
To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.
O.
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
That's okay thanks, I have my own spear, cross and nails, and I managed it easily.
Also, I had 22 witnesses to the event, so that's Christianity debunked I guess?
-
Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous.
But there is no reason that any of the rest of us need to accept your straw man definition of "anecdote".
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel).
But his resurrection accounts are still just anecdotes. He tells us he has researched things, but he doesn't tell us who his sources are. The problem is not necessarily that they are anecdotes, but that they are anecdotes about extraordinary events.
If by "anecdote" you mean he is reporting what someone else told him (whether they were eye-witnesses or not), then that would surely depend on how reliable their information was. A statement by an eye-witness is not worth less if a copper writes it down (and gets the eye-witness to sign it off) than if the eye-witness wrote it down him/herself (assuming the eye-witness can write).
The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle
Would you care to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that conclusion?
I can't. What I can do is point out that they were 1900 years nearer the event than you or I though. If we were relying on just Matthew's gospel as a source for the events of Jesus' life then I would be loathe to base my life on it, but we aren't. It is only part of the evidence we have.
Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness.
As above.
Papias and so on.
You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?
Yes I do doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get those facts right (we are talking mid to late second century here). I am pretty sure that, when you write down the reasoning for the attributions as I requested, it will be fairly obvious that it is really guesswork.
Incorrect, unless you are saying that the quotes we have today were definitely the very first ones ever written down. Papias died, what 140ADish. The Didache is probably late 1st century, early 2nd century. We have the first epistle of Clement from right the end of the first century. We have Paul's letters, even if we only accept 7 of them. We have Josephus and Tacitus telling us of a Jesus in Judea. None of this requires us to have a belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures to believe that the sources we have are sufficient to know that there was such a Jesus, that he was crucified and buried and that starting a couple of days later, individuals and groups of people were convinced that on about a dozen occasions (that we have recorded) they met, talked and sometimes ate with him.
I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later
It's reasonable, but is it true given that executed criminals weren't usually afforded personal tombs.
OK with that, but the NT tells us that he was put in someone else's tomb.
and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus.
Them being convinced is not unreasonable, but that it happened would be quite extraordinary and you therefore need much better evidence than you have.
Incorrect. It is not necessary to have extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it happened (as is sometimes claimed). What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did not happen (as I think you and I agreed on another thread).
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda.
A religious cult that actively proselytises? What more motive do you want?
A decent motive. Wanting to convert someone to a religious belief which highly prizes honesty and membership of which might well lead to persecution and, possibly, death does not seem to me to be a good reason for lying to people.
Right, I'm only 700 posts behind now.
-
After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.
Why?
Yesterday I saw a bus
Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft
Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky
If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"
What about you?
I would be thinking "Since a body so colossal that it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system can't actually do the funky chicken without destroying the solar system and us included, the explanation has to lie at the point of reception, i.e. humans and their faulty perception."
What about you?
Me too. But something happened. The possibility of the sun itself dancing around is nigh on zero, but what about the possibility of God, if he exists, raising Jesus from the dead. Remember we are having to explain about a dozen separate instances, not just one (mass) viewing of (probably) some atmospheric phenomenon.
-
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Do you think you could explain why it is that, whenever this point arises (which it does often), you immediately leap to lie (i.e. conscious and deliberate deception) rather than sincerely believed misconception, which is to say, people genuinely believe something about which they are mistaken? It's always lie to which you have immediate recourse and not misapprehension. Why is that, exactly?
Happy to look at other explanations. Which ones are you thinking of? That people (individuals and groups) on a dozen or so occasions mistook someone to be Jesus even though they spoke with him and sometimes ate with him (and the tomb was empty so where was Jesus' body)?
I'm happy to discuss anything you suggest, but please come up with an explanation which covers the whole of the evidence we have.
-
...
If God resurrected Jesus in order to show that death need not be the end, wouldn't you think he - being so much wiser and cleverer than any human being - would have had witnesses who could truthfully say they saw JC actually come back to life before their very eyes?
Why?
But no, he has him put in a cave with a largish stone placed in front ... then shows him days or weeks later talking to people.
Didn't he realise that it would be disputed, either his death or mistaken identity, afterwards?
It makes God look like a clumsy fool who messed up Big Time, not the God who knows and sees everything!
Looking forward to your explanation of why the evidence we have is not sufficient to come to a conclusion.
-
Incorrect. It is not necessary to have extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it happened (as is sometimes claimed). What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did not happen (as I think you and I agreed on another thread).
No.
Just....no.
An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary support for us to consider it viable. We cannot have evidence of an event that did not happen - the onus is on those making the claim to support their case.
In this instance we don't need to 'prove' that someone lied, or some deception occurred, or stories were made up after the fact - we don't need to provide alternatives until we've been given sufficient reason to think your suggestion might be true in the first place.
You're suggesting a resurrection took place, against a backdrop assumption that no resurrection took place. If you don't provide enough evidence to support the contention that a resurrection took place we don't need to provide any alternative explanation, we just don't accept yours and return to the default idea that resurrections don't happen.
O.
-
Happy to look at other explanations. Which ones are you thinking of? That people (individuals and groups) on a dozen or so occasions mistook someone to be Jesus even though they spoke with him and sometimes ate with him (and the tomb was empty so where was Jesus' body)?
Except that we don't have a good reason to think that's the case. We have one account, by one author, which has been doctored after it was written, which suggests that multiple people made that claim.
That's one extraordinary claim, with no corroboration.
I could say I've been visited by aliens today, and that 17 different alien species all confirmed that the other aliens were aliens... you still only have my word for that, and not sufficient evidence to accept the claim, and this is far more unlikely claim than aliens.
O.
-
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Do you think you could explain why it is that, whenever this point arises (which it does often), you immediately leap to lie (i.e. conscious and deliberate deception) rather than sincerely believed misconception, which is to say, people genuinely believe something about which they are mistaken? It's always lie to which you have immediate recourse and not misapprehension. Why is that, exactly?
Happy to look at other explanations. Which ones are you thinking of? That people (individuals and groups) on a dozen or so occasions mistook someone to be Jesus even though they spoke with him and sometimes ate with him (and the tomb was empty so where was Jesus' body)?
I'm happy to discuss anything you suggest, but please come up with an explanation which covers the whole of the evidence we have.
How do you know that the whole of your evidence, which consists of anecdotal reports, isn't completely fabricated?
-
Me too. But something happened. The possibility of the sun itself dancing around is nigh on zero, but what about the possibility of God, if he exists, raising Jesus from the dead. Remember we are having to explain about a dozen separate instances, not just one (mass) viewing of (probably) some atmospheric phenomenon.
No, again with the lying and presenting claims as facts (note there are not a dozen separate claims - this point has been made many many times but you have ignored it consistently, it may be that you are too stupid to deal with it, lying to yourself or indeed just lying outright) but please stop doing this it makes any form of discourse with you pointless.
That's leaving aside that possibility is based on naturalistic methods and you have never provided any methodology for dealing with supernatural claims.
I feel dirty even engaging with your tactics so I suggest that you take me ignoring any posts from you from now on as simply my judgement that I do not want to besmirch myself any further.
-
I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.
But how have you excluded the possibility that individuals/groups weren't telling the truth? After all, people make mistakes or lie, or are you saying that these individuals/groups were immune from these risks in some way? You then say that these accounts are 'generally accepted' facts: I say you are misrepresenting the robustness of these anecdotal claims and the term 'fact'.
Can I totally exclude that possibility? No, I can't. However, if they made a mistake, then individuals and groups did so on about a dozen occasions and the authorities never came up with Jesus's body. If they lied, then who lied? All dozen individuals/groups? The gospel-writers and Paul?
I'm happy to keep on trying to answer your questions, Gordon, but please would you come up with a plausible scenario yourself for the evidence of a claim of a dozen or so meetings of individuals and groups with Jesus and the claim of the empty tomb in, at least, 4 gospels and Paul's writings?. I have pointed out some evidence pointing towards Jesus having been raised from the dead and argued that certain things are likely or not likely. If you think mistakes or lies are more probable, then please give us a plausible scenario for that. Ta.
You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening.
I'm not saying it happened: you are! I'm suggesting that it might not have happened at all since these anecdotal claims are insufficient as evidence of the supernatural.
I appreciate that you are claiming that these "anecdotal" claims are insufficient, but why are you claiming that? You keep repeating it, saying it again and again. You don't say why.
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.
Easy - they wanted to keep their cause alive even if their main man was inconveniently dead. In that time and place a religious narrative would no doubt have more currency in a culture where religiosity was the norm.
But why would they want to keep their cause alive? Who wanted to keep their cause alive? How did they manage it? Who lied to whom?
Plausible scenario politely requested (but I'm not actually expecting to see one).
-
As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.
Remind me what the motive would be for NT-writers to have lied? How would they have got away with it in?
Not this old chesnut again - the whole point of propaganda is to convince the credulous and gullible, and no doubt many of these early Christians bought into the story (just as you do).
The NT writers may well have 'got away with it' since it seems that some of you still believe what they wrote, which is of course the type of thing they would write if they wanted to keep the Jesus myth going following his death.
So, I ask yet again, what was their motive? Why would they have come up with this propaganda? So that they can get other people to be persecuted and sometimes killed as well as themselves?
Give it a go and see how implausible it is, eh?
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Fine by me.
-
I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.
'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'
Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.
In what way are they generally accepted facts?
In the way that billions generally accept them.
So a billion accept that Mohammed was the prophet, does that make it a fact?
No, but it does mean that it is generally accepted (to some extent). You seem to be mixing up "generally accepted" with "true". Perhaps it would have been better for me to say just "generally accepted." I'll try to do that next time.
-
For the hard of thinking, a fact either is or is not true. It is not made true by the number believing it. It is not falsified if no one believes it.
Eta: correction to that there are no untrue facts. There are only facts. They really don't give a fuck.
Oooh. That reminds me of the objective morality thread.
-
I'm happy to keep on trying to answer your questions, Gordon, but please would you come up with a plausible scenario yourself for the evidence of a claim of a dozen or so meetings of individuals and groups with Jesus and the claim of the empty tomb in, at least, 4 gospels and Paul's writings?. I have pointed out some evidence pointing towards Jesus having been raised from the dead and argued that certain things are likely or not likely. If you think mistakes or lies are more probable, then please give us a plausible scenario for that. Ta.
Certainly - all of it being propaganda is highly plausible: there was no empty tomb and no post-death meetings, these are spurious claims and not evidence at all, and are exactly the sort of elements that a made-up resurrection story would contain so as to persuade the credulous and yet you repeat these claims as if they were historical facts.
Propaganda is known human behaviour and neatly disposes of all these claims without recourse to the fantastic, and since the alternative you offer is quite simply unbelievable then this much more pragmatic explanation at least has the advantage of being grounded in reality and is in line with known human experience.
You take the Bible far too seriously, Alan.
-
So, I ask yet again, what was their motive? Why would they have come up with this propaganda? So that they can get other people to be persecuted and sometimes killed as well as themselves?
Give it a go and see how implausible it is, eh?
Keeping the dream alive, Alan, by those with a personal interest in doing so - very plausible and an explanation that is probably as old as human society.
-
But it isn't clear that anyone died because they believed in the resurrection.
I was talking primarily about the apostles and those who claimed to have met the risen Jesus. Not those to whom Tacitus refers, living in Rome.
Rather they died because they believed in something that was seen as not acceptable to authorities which on the case of Rome show no knowledge or caring about any idea of a resurrection and of those who die most would not have seen anything.
The Romans found the eucharist unacceptable- it is thought this is what Tacitus referred to as 'abominations'. Pauls letter to the Christians in Rome states from the start that the basis for his belief is the resurrection. (See also 8:11, 10:9) And for those who had not 'seen anything', he reasoned from the Jewish scriptures that Jesus was the messiah.
Further people will happily die for things they do not fully accept if they think it is an overall good, see wartime.
I think you'll find that in wartime the people you mention die fighting, in contrast to the early Christians.
Again there is no method in the article, it is a gussied up argument by incredulity.
-
If by "anecdote" you mean he is reporting what someone else told him (whether they were eye-witnesses or not), then that would surely depend on how reliable their information was. A statement by an eye-witness is not worth less if a copper writes it down (and gets the eye-witness to sign it off) than if the eye-witness wrote it down him/herself (assuming the eye-witness can write).
Here are the problems. You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it. You do not know if an eye witness told him or wrote it down or told somebody else who wrote it down. You do not know if the eye witness was an honest person or prone to lying. You do not even know if there was an eye witness or if somebody just made it all up, or some combination of the two.
Even if you did know there was an eye witness, eye witness testimony can often be unreliable, especially if the eye witness is under stress.
Would you care to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that conclusion?
I can't. What I can do is point out that they were 1900 years nearer the event than you or I though.
That means nothing. You still don't know how they came to that conclusion.
Papias and so on.
But we don't have Papias's work and even if we did, he apparently admitted he got his information second hand, plus his description of "Matthew's gospel is blatantly not the work we have today.
Incorrect, unless you are saying that the quotes we have today were definitely the very first ones ever written down. Papias died, what 140ADish.
I'm saying the quotes we have today are the ones we have. If there are earlier ones that are lost, that's bad luck for you, but we don't have to pretend evidence existed once just because you deem it unfair.
The Didache is probably late 1st century, early 2nd century.
Does it tell us who wrote the gospels? No.
We have the first epistle of Clement from right the end of the first century.
Does it tell us who wrote the gospels? No.
We have Paul's letters, even if we only accept 7 of them.
Do any of them (including the other six) tell us who wrote the gospels? No.
We have Josephus and Tacitus telling us of a Jesus in Judea.
Telling us of a Christ, neither of them giving us their sources.
None of this requires us to have a belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures to believe that the sources we have are sufficient to know that there was such a Jesus, that he was crucified and buried and that starting a couple of days later, individuals and groups of people were convinced that on about a dozen occasions (that we have recorded) they met, talked and sometimes ate with him.
This is disingenuous of you. You have cited a number of documents that appear to support the idea that Jesus was crucified and then you conflate the crucifixion and resurrection as if these documents all support the resurrection appearances that are only described in the three gospels.
OK with that, but the NT tells us that he was put in someone else's tomb.
But are the NT accounts true? They were all written many years after the events by persons unknown and the original source or sources are unknown.
What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did not happen (as I think you and I agreed on another thread).
No, you have got that wrong. What you need is that, given the evidence, the probability that Jesus was resurrected is higher than the probability that something else happened. I can go into the reasoning in detail but there is no point because one of the things we need to assess along the way is the probability that Jesus was resurrected with or without evidence. I would argue that probability is very very small which means you need extraordinarily good evidence to counter the other possibilities like delusion or lying. You, on the other hand, claim God can increase that probability, but invoking God makes all probability calculations meaningless.
A religious cult that actively proselytises? What more motive do you want?
A decent motive.
The one I just gave you was an excellent motive. The fact that you do not like tells us more about your flawed thought processes than anything else.
Wanting to convert someone to a religious belief which highly prizes honesty and membership of which might well lead to persecution and, possibly, death does not seem to me to be a good reason for lying to people.
Christianity certainly prizes honesty amongst the ordinary members but its leaders have a chequered record in that department, to say the least. The leaders of religious movements tend to accrue sizeable wealth and power in comparison to the flock.
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
I see what you did there. Your last sentence should read "so the anecdotes would be no more reliable".
The names and addresses would give us some evidence that the eye witnesses did, at least exist.
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
Given what is claimed here, then no: apart from the identification of these alleged eye-witnesses you'd still have to exclude the risks that they were mistaken or were lying, and especially the latter if they were potentially biased - so you are still stuck with the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence.
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
When someone claims something less than credible has happened, it is always best to look for a logical explanation not jump on the supernatural/godwotdunit bandwagon!
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
I see what you did there. Your last sentence should read "so the anecdotes would be no more reliable".
The names and addresses would give us some evidence that the eye witnesses did, at least exist.
We have the names of the women, the twelve disciples and other people (parents, spouses, Jewish Sanhedrin members, people cured of disease, Simon of Cyrene etc)- maybe not their addresses (unless you count the places they are identified as coming from). Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications. It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.
-
You do not know how reliable the information is because you do not know how Matthew came by it.
Would you trust the information if you had the names and addresses of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses? You would have no way of verifying it, even if some were secular historians. So anecdote would be no less reliable.
I see what you did there. Your last sentence should read "so the anecdotes would be no more reliable".
The names and addresses would give us some evidence that the eye witnesses did, at least exist.
We have the names of the women, the twelve disciples and other people (parents, spouses, Jewish Sanhedrin members, people cured of disease, Simon of Cyrene etc)- maybe not their addresses (unless you count the places they are identified as coming from). Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications. It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.
There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons! ::)
-
We have the names of the women, the twelve disciples and other people (parents, spouses, Jewish Sanhedrin members, people cured of disease, Simon of Cyrene etc)- maybe not their addresses (unless you count the places they are identified as coming from). Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications. It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.
Except that by the time the stories were written down any alleged witnesses would most likely have been dead. If these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact at a time when the majority of people had a life expectancy of perhaps forty-five years, who would have been around to question?
Assuming, of course, that the written accounts came to light in the same area as the people lived, given that as well as living shorter lives people rarely travelled any distance.
Given a credulous general populace exposed to any number of tales of supernatural goings-on, why would they particularly question another tall tale in that environment?
O.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.
-
Except that by the time the stories were written down any alleged witnesses would most likely have been dead.
By the time Luke was written, many people had already undertaken to draw up an account. (Lk 1:1)
-
Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications.
A definite risk, but even if some or all of these were real people that doesn't in itself mean that what they claimed is true or credible or has been accurately recorded.
It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.
Not 'safe': possible perhaps, but not certain - then there is also the unknown element of the gap in time before the alleged eye-witness accounts were first recorded, which adds in the risk of transmission errors if the first accounts written down were by then 2nd/3rd hand. Since I can see no way, from this distance, of ever knowing for sure then it would be reasonable to be cautious.
Even then, as I said above, this doesn't mean that these accounts are factually true and you need to address the risks of mistakes or lies without resorting to special pleading.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.
And once again, any evidence that either the authorities knew this or thought in the sense of treating them as modern eye witnesses? That is of course leaving aside the modern view of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
It seems to me as if you want the authorities then to have the idea that they could disprove such things in the modern sense but then want to ignore all the known modern understandings of eye witness testimony. It is an incoherent position.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.
I can name all sorts of eye witnesses to all sorts of magical events, what is valued is first hand eye witness testimony.
-
I'll say it again it always sticks in my mind; loads of people have these visions of various religious figures like a christian seeing Mary, then other christians seeing a picture of Jesus on a potato etc etc, how come christians only see figures from their own beliefs, instead of seeing a vision of say Mohammed and perhaps a muslim seeing a vision of Mary?
If these visions were to jump the belief gaps and they began to see figures from each others religions it might make the whole of religious belief and associated visions idea a bit more credible.
I can't see, Get it, "can't see", this happening or anything else that is likely to make religious belief more credible.
ippy
-
There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons! ::)
'The Bowmen' was a work of fiction, and its author, Arthur Machen, responded to readers who thought it was true by saying it was completely imaginary.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.
I can name all sorts of eye witnesses to all sorts of magical events, what is valued is first hand eye witness testimony.
It seems that we have perfectly reasonable accounts which if they were not relating supernatural events would be acceptable to you. I doubt you would believe first hand testimony either (that is, direct from the witness to you)
-
There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons! ::)
'The Bowmen' was a work of fiction, and its author, Arthur Machen, responded to readers who thought it was true by saying it was completely imaginary.
Miracle of the Sun
-
And once again, any evidence that either the authorities knew this or thought in the sense of treating them as modern eye witnesses? That is of course leaving aside the modern view of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place. What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position. If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.
Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.
-
And once again, any evidence that either the authorities knew this or thought in the sense of treating them as modern eye witnesses? That is of course leaving aside the modern view of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place. What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position. If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.
Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.
I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.
ippy
-
Except that by the time the stories were written down any alleged witnesses would most likely have been dead.
The average life expectancy for men at the time was 29, according to several internet sources I've looked at. Taking into account the number of infant and youth deaths, those who reached adulthood probably lived to 35 or 40. By the way, this explains why young girls would have been married off far younger than they are now, and why Mary is described as a young girl.
If these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact at a time when the majority of people had a life expectancy of perhaps forty-five years, who would have been around to question?
Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'. Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events). Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.
Assuming, of course, that the written accounts came to light in the same area as the people lived, given that as well as living shorter lives people rarely travelled any distance.
In fact, this is a good argument for the validity of the 'stories' because those who were allegedly present at the events would have been able to be questioned by the authorites, by the followers of the apostles, etc. The locals would also have been able to inform the questioners if such and such a person had never existed.
Given a credulous general populace exposed to any number of tales of supernatural goings-on, why would they particularly question another tall tale in that environment?
How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to? Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?
-
I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.
Anecdote, ippy - not evidence. Furthermore, was Star Trek written before or after the stories surrounding the death and resurrection appearances of Christ. If the latter, then the existence of such a storyline has no impact on the validity or otherwise of the death and resurrection appearance stories. ;) ;D
-
I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.
Anecdote, ippy - not evidence. Furthermore, was Star Trek written before or after the stories surrounding the death and resurrection appearances of Christ. If the latter, then the existence of such a storyline has no impact on the validity or otherwise of the death and resurrection appearance stories. ;) ;D
Are you sure, Star Trek is fiction.
ippy
-
Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'. Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events). Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.
Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents. Regardless, the events referred to aren't in Galatians, they are in the Gospels, the earliest of which date from some time around 70AD.
In fact, this is a good argument for the validity of the 'stories' because those who were allegedly present at the events would have been able to be questioned by the authorites, by the followers of the apostles, etc. The locals would also have been able to inform the questioners if such and such a person had never existed.
If any local authorities had any conducted any investigation you'd expect there to be records of it in their histories - there aren't. As with the claims of Exodus, the lack of corroboration from the regional authorities of the time is suggestive.
How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to? Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?
Apart from the tales of the Greek and Roman deities, stories of the heroes of myth and the like, you mean? Well, most tellingly, the myths of the Old Testament.
O.
-
We have the names of the women, the twelve disciples and other people (parents, spouses, Jewish Sanhedrin members, people cured of disease, Simon of Cyrene etc)- maybe not their addresses (unless you count the places they are identified as coming from).
Where are all these people's eye witness statements of seeing the resurrected Jesus?
Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications.
How? The gospels were written probably after these people were all dead, if they existed at all.
It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.
No it doesn't.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection.
You'll be able to show us his eye witness account then.
Thought not.
-
NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place. What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position. If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.
And perhaps, in reality, they all scattered so the authorities deemed them no longer a threat and they only later regrouped and invented the resurrection story.
Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.
According to stories written by Christians decades after the events.
-
NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place. What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position. If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.
And perhaps, in reality, they all scattered so the authorities deemed them no longer a threat and they only later regrouped and invented the resurrection story.
Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.
According to stories written by Christians decades after the events.
Only a couple and they seem to point to a number of already established orthodox Christian communities.
-
How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to? Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?
Yep loads, can't believe you are that ignorant of that time period.
-
There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons! ::)
'The Bowmen' was a work of fiction, and its author, Arthur Machen, responded to readers who thought it was true by saying it was completely imaginary.
Miracle of the Sun
Probably a normal astronomical event. Also, nobody ever reported finding Mary's tomb empty.
-
I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.
I can name all sorts of eye witnesses to all sorts of magical events, what is valued is first hand eye witness testimony.
It seems that we have perfectly reasonable accounts which if they were not relating supernatural events would be acceptable to you. I doubt you would believe first hand testimony either (that is, direct from the witness to you)
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
-
Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'. Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events). Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.
Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents.
Acts 9 tells us of Paul's conversion, and Galations 1 tells us that after three years he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James, the two whom he mentions in 1 Cor 15:5-7 as those to whom Jesus appeared; in 1 Cor 15 he tells us that he received details of Jesus' death and resurrection which he passed on to the Corinthians. He must have received these details from Peter and James themselves during that visit to Jerusalem. Possibly 40-41AD?
-
Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'. Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events). Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.
Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents.
Acts 9 tells us of Paul's conversion, and 1 Cor 15 tells us that he received details of Jesus' death and resurrection which he passed on to the Corinthians. But he must have received them soon after he was converted, in around 37 AD.
Except that Acts was written significantly later, and could have been constructed or adjusted to attempt to justify the claims of the earlier works.
At the end of the day, the New Testament chronology has as much validity as the Qu'Ranic chronology, yet you presumably fail to accept that account? It's not because it has any less supporting evidence - if anything it has slightly more - it's because you're already pre-disposed to accept Christianity.
Post hoc rationalisations don't change the fact that it's an inherently unreliable story, and is accepted out of faith rather than logic.
O.
-
Outrider, please see my edited post. Acts and Paul's letters show that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death.
-
Outrider, please see my edited post. Acts and Paul's letters show that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death.
No, Acts and Paul's letters claim that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death, but we don't know that 'Paul' is real, and we don't know that the 'Paul' of the letters is the same 'Paul' from Acts even if he is real.
None of which changes the fact that you don't accept other, marginally less implausible superstitions - this isn't about reason, it's about belief regardless of the evidence which you selectively interpret after the fact to try to justify the belief you already have.
O.
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
The irony... :o
O.
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
So its not about the quality of the evidence but if its important to you, I thought as much.
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.
-
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't.
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
Acts says:-
King James Bible
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Just as people make the same mistakes comparing the gospels over events of healing etc they do the same with the appearances of Christ.
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
People assume that each gospel and the person writing them are speaking and relating to the very same incident. Whilst in fact they could all be speaking about different individual cases where the facts are not related identically.
Each witness is writing an account but they are not writing a full account or collaborated account; just including all the things Christ did.
We know Christ raised the dead and that two accounts are clear Lazarus and the young girl. We know that Tabitha was raised from the dead and we Elijah raised a boy from the dead. All done by the power of God. We need to remember in those 3 years Christ changed history for ever by showing us what God wants for mankind. Restoration and healing. It is pointless to argue as if all the accounts are about the same incident. We see Christ did these things over and over and again.
-
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't.
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
Acts says:-
King James Bible
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Just as people make the same mistakes comparing the gospels over events of healing etc they do the same with the appearances of Christ.
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
People assume that each gospel and the person writing them are speaking and relating to the very same incident. Whilst in fact they could all be speaking about different individual cases where the facts are not related identically.
Each witness is writing an account but they are not writing a full account or collaborated account; just including all the things Christ did.
We know Christ raised the dead and that two accounts are clear Lazarus and the young girl. We know that Tabitha was raised from the dead and we Elijah raised a boy from the dead. All done by the power of God. We need to remember in those 3 years Christ changed history for ever by showing us what God wants for mankind. Restoration and healing. It is pointless to argue as if all the accounts are about the same incident. We see Christ did these things over and over and again.
We know nothing of the sort. ::) There is no verifiable evidence anyone, including Jesus, has ever come back to life if they were actually dead!
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.
Did the ghost you saw offer you eternal life? :D
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.
Did the ghost you saw offer you eternal life? :D
What difference would that make?
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.
Did the ghost you saw offer you eternal life? :D
Not only that but an eternal blow job as well.
-
Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.
A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?
But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.
Did the ghost you saw offer you eternal life? :D
What difference would that make?
Because that's what the whole thing is all about! It's the best way they think they'll avoid death!
A futile aim but if it helps them get through life, who are we to disappoint them!
-
Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period. So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24
You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.
Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.
And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't.
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
Acts says:-
King James Bible
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Just as people make the same mistakes comparing the gospels over events of healing etc they do the same with the appearances of Christ.
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
People assume that each gospel and the person writing them are speaking and relating to the very same incident. Whilst in fact they could all be speaking about different individual cases where the facts are not related identically.
Each witness is writing an account but they are not writing a full account or collaborated account; just including all the things Christ did.
We know Christ raised the dead and that two accounts are clear Lazarus and the young girl. We know that Tabitha was raised from the dead and we Elijah raised a boy from the dead. All done by the power of God. We need to remember in those 3 years Christ changed history for ever by showing us what God wants for mankind. Restoration and healing. It is pointless to argue as if all the accounts are about the same incident. We see Christ did these things over and over and again.
We know nothing of the sort. ::) There is no verifiable evidence anyone, including Jesus, has ever come back to life if they were actually dead!
The witnesses are the proof and the many who know Christ today. If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...
-
Because that's what the whole thing is all about! It's the best way they think they'll avoid death!
The second death, ITYM
-
Because that's what the whole thing is all about! It's the best way they think they'll avoid death!
The second death, ITYM
You can only die once! ::)
-
The witnesses are the proof and the many who know Christ today. If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...
In other words, no reliable evidence, which is exactly what Flu said.
-
The witnesses are the proof
Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable.
and the many who know Christ today.
How do we know you know Christ? What if it is a delusion, or Satan pretending?
If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...
You should follow your own advice.
-
The Gospels most likely don't contain any eye witness testimony.
-
Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.
-
Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.
Don't agree with that, Len. I suppose some people are always likely to be susceptible to the lure of the supernatural, but I can't think it's good policy to suggest people avoid reading Homer's Odyssey in case they end up believing in the gods of ancient Greece, or avoid studying Egyptian hieroglyphics and the tomb of Tutenkhamun in case they end up believing in Ra and Horus (if they're into that sort of thing).
I suppose the situation is different in that Christianity is still an active force in the world in its supernatural aspect, and as such is likely to attract rather more converts than Isis and Osiris but, reading the bible in the light of history and objective criticism can be instructive. And some of its moral precepts are still worthwhile.....
-
Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?
Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.
Don't agree with that, Len. I suppose some people are always likely to be susceptible to the lure of the supernatural, but I can't think it's good policy to suggest people avoid reading Homer's Odyssey in case they end up believing in the gods of ancient Greece, or avoid studying Egyptian hieroglyphics and the tomb of Tutenkhamun in case they end up believing in Ra and Horus (if they're into that sort of thing).
I suppose the situation is different in that Christianity is still an active force in the world in its supernatural aspect, and as such is likely to attract rather more converts than Isis and Osiris but, reading the bible in the light of history and objective criticism can be instructive. And some of its moral precepts are still worthwhile.....
I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc. There were quite enough of those daft beliefs in circulation at the time, without adding to them. The moral advice in the Bible is for the most part good.
However, my comment was more tongue in cheek using the same words as the thread title. I should have added a smiley ... sorry!
-
. I should have added a smiley ... sorry!
Only ONE smiley Len? Are you feeling OK?
-
I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc.
Are they outdated, Len? Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't. From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past. Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?
-
I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc.
Are they outdated, Len? Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't. From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past. Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?
Probably, yes.
Until good evidence comes in, then that is the assumed default.
-
Are they outdated, Len? Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't. From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past. Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?
Straw man again! I have never suggested nor implied that it is a case of mental ill-health.
If not induced by medication or stress, I think it is nothing more than auto-suggestion.
-
"Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order"?
I couldn't help noticing that this thread is still plodding on, seriously when it's so obvious that this old manual of mythical superstitions and magic twaddle is man made what does it really matter about the cast in order of appearance?
This thread is about as relevant as what happened to Sherlock Holms at the Richenbach falls, except perhaps Sherlock Holmes adventures are a bit more interesting.
ippy
-
So if they spoke about the same sightings they would be seen as not independent and thus not trustworthy, but if they don't speak about the same sightings we shouldn't trust them because they don't corroborate each other. Is that what you mean?
"Independent" doesn't mean talking about different sightings, it means having different original sources. What you want is two or more people talking about the same event but either being eye witnesses or sourcing the material ultimately from different eye witnesses.
Agreed.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are.
No I am correct.
OK, demonstrate it, please. I see no good reason to doubt the early church's belief that the gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You are saying they were wrong, are you not?
You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.
But you having an opinion does not mean you know who the authors are.
And you having an opinion that we do not know does not mean we do not know. Etc.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
You have an account of a man rising from the dead. So what?
Why do you think the examples are comparable in any sensible manner?
They both talk about fantastical events that violate the known laws of nature.
I do not need to show that God exists to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. What I try to do is show that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that tomb was empty a couple of days later and that individuals and groups were convinced they met, spoke and sometimes ate with him afterwards. The best explanation of that is that he was indeed dead on the Friday and alive the Sunday onwards. What is the best explanation for that? That he was raised by God, as he had predicted. In order to be raised by God, God has to exist.
But you fail to show that the events are as you claim. You show that we have stories describing some events, but you fail to show that the events they describe were real.
We have evidence (the gospels, Paul and so on) that there were people (individuals and groups) who sincerely believed they met with Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and that the tomb was empty. Are you saying those people did not sincerely believe that or that Jesus being resurrected is not the best explanation, please?
Furthermore, your assessment that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those stories rests entirely on the assumption that God exists. Without God and with the known laws of the Universe, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is vanishingly small.
Nope. It rests on the possibility that God exists. His resurrection demonstrates that God, the Christian God, exists.
Even furthermore, once you assume God exists and interferes with the World, all arguments based on probability (which is to say all arguments about the real Word) are rendered null and void.
Why? The Christian idea of God is that of a God with a mind who does stuff for reasons (reasons we don't always fully understand, I grant you), but not a random event generator.
You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning. Induction is inferring conclusions from observations. For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing. Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.
This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes. There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.
Why?
Perhaps an example would help. If I toss a fair coin ten times, what is the probability that it will come up heads each time? It's 1/1024.
Now suppose that I have a telekinetic ability so that I can nudge the coin imperceptibly as it is spinning in the air and make it land on whichever side I please. What is the probability of it coming up heads each time? Can you even answer the question?
No, I can't give you a probability, but the God that Christians argue exists is not some random thing doing stuff on a whim, but has a purpose to what he does.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
I don't have that assumption.
Yes you do. When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".
You spoke about an assumption that God could make anything happen at any time. I don't have that assumption.
-
...
Science isn't, implicitly, beyond comprehension. Gods are.
O.
Why do you think that God is beyond comprehension?
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.
Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.
Is all this quibbling your way of telling me that you can't answer the question I posed? How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?
I've told you twice that I don't have that assumption.
-
OK, demonstrate it, please. I see no good reason to doubt the early church's belief that the gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You are saying they were wrong, are you not?
I demonstrate it by pointing out that nobody has a credible chain of evidence that leads from any gospel back to the purported author. Note that the fact that you are take the views of the late second century church on faith does not count as a credible chain of evidence.
And you having an opinion that we do not know does not mean we do not know. Etc.
Indeed it doesn't, but my opinion is supported by the facts and most credible scholars of the New Testament. Yours is a combination of second century guesswork and your own wishful thinking.
We have evidence (the gospels, Paul and so on) that there were people (individuals and groups) who sincerely believed they met with Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and that the tomb was empty.
The gospels are certainly not reliable for reasons we have already discussed.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb, even in situations where he might be expected to do so. Nor, if I recall correctly, does he mention any flogging or anybody meeting Jesus. If you were to assess the evidence of Paul's letters honestly, you would come to the conclusion that he did not know the empty tomb story or any of the stories about Jesus meetin and eating with people after the resurrection. This is in spite of the fact that he spent two weeks with Cephas (Peter).
Are you saying those people did not sincerely believe that or that Jesus being resurrected is not the best explanation, please?
I'm sure many of them sincerely believed Jesus was resurrected. I'm also pretty sure that the resurrection they believed was not of the type that gained currency in the gospels.
Nope. It rests on the possibility that God exists. His resurrection demonstrates that God, the Christian God, exists.
Like I said, the assumption that God exists.
The Christian idea of God is that of a God with a mind who does stuff for reasons (reasons we don't always fully understand, I grant you), but not a random event generator.
Imagine we are both sitting at a table. I have a six sided dice which I proceed to throw a number of times. You keep a record of the number that comes up on each throw and you find that each of the numbers from one to six comes up roughly the same number of times.
If I say to you, what is the probability of me throwing a six next time, I guess you'd be happy with the answer of 1/6.
Then I then reveal that I have an electromagnet concealed in the table and a metal plate concealed in the dice such that, by turning on the electromagnet, my accomplice hidden in the next room can ensure that the dice will come up six.
Are you still happy to assign a 1/6 probability of a six coming up on the next throw? Are you happy to assign any probability to a six coming up on the next throw.
As soon as we concede the possibility of a god that interferes with the natural world, all of our reasoning fails because God can subvert it on a whim.
If you are going to insist on a supernatural entity behind the scenes loading the metaphorical dice, we might as well give up. You should just say "I have faith in God" and leave it at that.
No, I can't give you a probability
Precisely. And that means all of our tools for reasoning about the World fail. What you are doing is not history, it is just a pretence of history.
-
Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.
I don't have that assumption.
Yes you do. When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".
You spoke about an assumption that God could make anything happen at any time. I don't have that assumption.
Yes you do.
-
I've told you twice that I don't have that assumption.
And you are now wrong about it on three occasions.
-
Your point about hearsay is incorrect.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
I gave you the OED definition of "hearsay" and have now included it in my signature.
OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:"
Let's see you substantiate the story of the road to Emmaus then.
I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that), but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life. Consider the following:
Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.
So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete? Fred and Harry remember him winning the 100m in Year 7, but Mary says nothing about this. Mary and Harry remember that James won the 200m too, but Fred does not remember it. Fred remembers James winning the 400m, but we have no substantiation of that.
Was James a good athlete at school?
-
There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
On what basis do you know that these reports are trustworthy?
As explained before because we have independent reports of about a dozen people, both individuals and groups, were convinced they saw Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and the tomb was empty. There has been no explanation put forward by your side which explains all the evidence better, in my opinion, than that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead.
Why do you think they are untrustworthy (apart from perhaps not wanting God being in charge of your life)?
-
There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
On what basis do you know that these reports are trustworthy?
As explained before because we have independent reports of about a dozen people, both individuals and groups, were convinced they saw Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and the tomb was empty. There has been no explanation put forward by your side which explains all the evidence better, in my opinion, than that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead.
Why do you think they are untrustworthy (apart from perhaps not wanting God being in charge of your life)?
For a start you don't have an explanation: you have claims in anecdotal reports that 'about a dozen people' saw Jesus post-resurrection and there was an 'empty tomb' - these are claims of uncertain provenance and are not historical facts, so how do you know they are the truth?
Why on earth you keep asking for an explanation from 'my side' beats me, since you presume that these claims are facts that are explainable when there is a clear risk that they are fictitious. A better and more parsimonious explanation, and one that fits known human behaviour and effortlessly covers all these claims, is that the whole story is a combination of ancient religious credulity and propaganda.
P.S. Mrs G is in charge of my life, and she says she isn't God (to be sure I just asked her).
-
I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that), but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life. Consider the following:
Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.
So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete? Fred and Harry remember him winning the 100m in Year 7, but Mary says nothing about this. Mary and Harry remember that James won the 200m too, but Fred does not remember it. Fred remembers James winning the 400m, but we have no substantiation of that.
Was James a good athlete at school?
160 years later, James' biographer says that he spoke with 'Fred', 'Harry' and 'Mary' and they told him these things, but he can't actually present any footage or writings of the three of them to vouch for that... now how confident are we that James is a good athlete?
O.
-
I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that), but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life. Consider the following:
Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.
So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete? Fred and Harry remember him winning the 100m in Year 7, but Mary says nothing about this. Mary and Harry remember that James won the 200m too, but Fred does not remember it. Fred remembers James winning the 400m, but we have no substantiation of that.
Was James a good athlete at school?
You seem to be implicitly conflating anecdotal claims about prowess at school sports with anecdotal claims about supernatural agency on the basis, I suspect, that if we can say that James was a good athlete based on the claims of his associates we should assume Jesus was resurrected on the basis of what his associates said - only the highly credulous would be daft enough to fall for this.
This is desperate stuff, Alan.
-
OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:"
And your point is?
Let's see you substantiate the story of the road to Emmaus then.
I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that),
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life.
That's an extraordinary claim. You'll need extraordinary evidence.
Consider the following:
Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.
So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete?
I don't know. Was he a real person? Assuming he was, are you seriously trying to claim that being a good school athlete requires the same quality of evidence as rising from the dead to substantiate it?
-
OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:"
And your point is?
Let's see you substantiate the story of the road to Emmaus then.
I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that),
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life.
That's an extraordinary claim. You'll need extraordinary evidence.
Consider the following:
Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.
So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete?
I don't know. Was he a real person? Assuming he was, are you seriously trying to claim that being a good school athlete requires the same quality of evidence as rising from the dead to substantiate it?
I think that with this school sports day analogy Alan has set the evidence bar so low that the biggest worry is actually tripping over it!
-
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.
-
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.
You can't substantiate the gospel stories by quoting the gospels, dear boy.
-
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.
And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.
-
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.
And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.
Sorry, NS, substantiating something is "Provid(ing) evidence to support or prove the truth of" something. Jeremy asked "Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it." The documentary evidence substantiates the claim.
Whether the claim in and of itself is true is a different matter; as I and others have pointed out, you are restricting yourself to a naturalistic method of evidence, a level of evidence that several of us believe to be a limited one. As you and others have said plenty of times, your level of evidence doesn't admit what you call supernatural evidence. I, for one, do not believe that that low level of evidence is reflective of real life.
-
Let's make it a bit easier for you then. Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.
There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.
And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.
Sorry, NS, substantiating something is "Provid(ing) evidence to support or prove the truth of" something. Jeremy asked "Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it." The documentary evidence substantiates the claim.
Sorry Hope but you came into this half way through. I was asking Alan to substantiate the stories that appear in the gospels. You can't substantiate a document with itself.
-
... as I and others have pointed out, you are restricting yourself to a naturalistic method of evidence, a level of evidence that several of us believe to be a limited one.
.. except that since you are unable to provide a methodology of your own, the concept of "limited" doesn't apply. Something can only be defined as having a certain limit by comparison with something that exceeds it, and you cannot demonstrate that anything 'exceeds' a purely naturalistic, materialistic paradigm.
As you and others have said plenty of times, your level of evidence doesn't admit what you call supernatural evidence. I, for one, do not believe that that low level of evidence is reflective of real life.
Same goes for "low."
-
Same goes for "low."
At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said: "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8). Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography. Your geological mountains are somewhat limited." When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.
-
A superb analogy beautifully expressed. Top banana :D
-
I rather like the idea of us all trudging up Everest. Or one of those hills in the Peak District at any rate. Then we could find a nice pub on the way back down.
-
Same goes for "low."
At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said: "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8). Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography. Your geological mountains are somewhat limited." When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.
That's some post. Well done.
-
Same goes for "low."
At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said: "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8). Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography. Your geological mountains are somewhat limited." When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.
That's some post. Well done.
He's also being somewhat evasive on his methodology for measuring the height of his super geological mountains.
-
Same goes for "low."
At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said: "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8). Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography. Your geological mountains are somewhat limited." When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.
That's some post. Well done.
He's also being somewhat evasive on his methodology for measuring the height of his super geological mountains.
I'm sure he'll say he has a divine ruler.
-
That's a shocker, G. ;D
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
If you did, in the same manner, then your victim would probably die, and having died remain dead - as would have been the case with Jesus (assuming he was actually crucified).
The problem here is your continued assumption that these tales of post-death interaction are actually true: how have you addressed the risk of propaganda?
Propaganda as in "people deliberately telling lies"?
-
..
Still punting claims as facts in your normal lying manner.
Why is it that you lie like this continually?
Why do you accuse me of lying, please? Do you know what "lying" means?
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
And I've still got a vat of poison and some snakes for you to drink and get bitten by. Once you've done that, you can nail me to as many crosses as you like.
Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
-
Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?
According to Luke's gospel, the ascension happens pretty much the same day as the resurrection. Try reading it without your preconceptions about what happened.
Please see #1123.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
And I've still got a vat of poison and some snakes for you to drink and get bitten by. Once you've done that, you can nail me to as many crosses as you like.
Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?
I think it's a comment on your credulity.
And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them
-
...
Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...
O.
Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?
No, we have one claim, which claims those corroborations.
To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.
O.
As in
* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
-
Why not, Gordon?
For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.
You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.
Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
That's okay thanks, I have my own spear, cross and nails, and I managed it easily.
Also, I had 22 witnesses to the event, so that's Christianity debunked I guess?
Excellent. Who are these witnesses, please?
-
Incorrect. It is not necessary to have extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it happened (as is sometimes claimed). What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did not happen (as I think you and I agreed on another thread).
No.
Just....no.
Actually, yes. I was speaking to JeremyP, who, if I remember correctly agreed with how the probability is calculated, though who disagrees with the figures used.
An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary support for us to consider it viable.
No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77). See also #91 there for JeremyP's follow up comment, including the difficulty of assigning values.We cannot have evidence of an event that did not happen
Well, yes. And? - the onus is on those making the claim to support their case.
Yes, no-one is arguing otherwise.
In this instance we don't need to 'prove' that someone lied, or some deception occurred, or stories were made up after the fact - we don't need to provide alternatives until we've been given sufficient reason to think your suggestion might be true in the first place.
You're suggesting a resurrection took place, against a backdrop assumption that no resurrection took place. If you don't provide enough evidence to support the contention that a resurrection took place we don't need to provide any alternative explanation, we just don't accept yours and return to the default idea that resurrections don't happen.
O.
See the above posts, etc.
-
To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.
O.
As in
* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?
How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?
-
To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.
O.
As in
* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?
How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?
They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses, so there isn't a problem with their use of Matthew in their frameworks. For example, Luke records the healing of a crippled woman who couldn't straighten up (Lk 13). This isn't mentioned in any other gospel.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
-
No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).
You seem to be saying no but yes?
Also the post you refer to was wrong.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam? I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam? I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.
Repetition does not mean it is not true though.
All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.
Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.
What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam? I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.
Repetition does not mean it is not true though.
All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.
Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.
What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.
The only burden round here is your benighted presence.
-
Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?
I think it's a comment on your credulity.
And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them
That's about the size of it.
Although it could also be a sign of Al's memory problems. Every time he dredges up his ridiculous 'get nailed to a cross challenge', I explain I'll be perfectly happy to do it as long as he does the snake and poison challenge first (which seems only fair to me) but he always refuses and then either he can't remember or pretends he can't remember it ever having come up before.
Still, Jesus didn't promise his followers would have really good memories I suppose...
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam? I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.
Repetition does not mean it is not true though.
All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.
Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.
What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.
The only burden round here is your benighted presence.
Can we assume you do not understand the burden of proof?
It seems clear that you do not understand, but better if you just admit it.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
If he was dead he remained dead.
In any event he is dead now.
This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.
There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.
Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam? I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.
Repetition does not mean it is not true though.
All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.
Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.
What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.
The only burden round here is your benighted presence.
Can we assume you do not understand the burden of proof?
It seems clear that you do not understand, but better if you just admit it.
The only thing I need to understand here is that you are a boring, repetitious, obsessive.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God.
How do you know? And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.
How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.
-
To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.
O.
As in
* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?
How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?
So you think that the resurrection appearances recorded in the above are not independent of each other? If so, why, please?
-
No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).
You seem to be saying no but yes?
Also the post you refer to was wrong.
As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?
It is the correct post.
-
Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?
I think it's a comment on your credulity.
And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them
That's about the size of it.
Although it could also be a sign of Al's memory problems. Every time he dredges up his ridiculous 'get nailed to a cross challenge', I explain I'll be perfectly happy to do it as long as he does the snake and poison challenge first (which seems only fair to me) but he always refuses and then either he can't remember or pretends he can't remember it ever having come up before.
Still, Jesus didn't promise his followers would have really good memories I suppose...
Why are you quoting something which is not part of Mark's gospel? Have you forgotten that that part was not part of the original gospel? If you and I have discussed this before, as you claim above, I will certainly have mentioned that it is not original.
Would you be so good as to link to one of the occasions where I "always refuse and then either can't remember or pretend I can't remember it ever having come up before." Cheers.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God.
How do you know?
I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God. And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.
Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.
How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.
My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.
Divisive? Why?
Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.
-
No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).
You seem to be saying no but yes?
Also the post you refer to was wrong.
As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?
It is the correct post.
The latter.
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God.
How do you know?
I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God.
Perhaps you should start letting your wife answer some posts for you then. The rest of us might get a straight answer then.
And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.
Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.
What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.
My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.
Divisive? Why?
Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?
Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.
I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.
-
No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).
You seem to be saying no but yes?
Also the post you refer to was wrong.
As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?
It is the correct post.
The latter.
Why do you think it is wrong?
-
I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.
How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?
No thanks. I'm not the Son of God.
How do you know?
I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God.
Perhaps you should start letting your wife answer some posts for you then. The rest of us might get a straight answer then.
And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.
Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.
What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
Yes. Whether he would is a separate question though.And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.
Since he came back to life, having been dead, it demonstrates that God exists. That is not circular. You may disagree with it as a conclusion, but it is not circular.
My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.
Divisive? Why?
Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?
Is "your fellow atheists" OK?
Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.
I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.
Fair enough. You won't be taking part in the discussion any more then since you couldn't care less?
-
They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses
Firstly, Mark is the earliest gospel that the others copied.
Secondly, you do not know if the sources for any of the gospels were eye witnesses.
We have been over this so many times, you should really stop spouting your nonsense.
-
So you think that the resurrection appearances recorded in the above are not independent of each other? If so, why, please?
You have three narratives that are all different so they are obviously independent but since they are all different, they don't provide corroboration of each other.
Not only that, but you don't know who their sources were, or if they even had sources (i.e. the gospel authors made them up).
-
Why are you quoting something which is not part of Mark's gospel?
It wasn't Squeaky Voice quoting it, it was me to explain to you Squeaky's reference to poison and snakes which you were having trouble understanding.
Have you forgotten that that part was not part of the original gospel?
And yet, there it is in the Bible. If that bit is erroneous, how do you know any of it is trustworthy?
-
What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
Yes. Whether he would is a separate question though.
So we're back to you volunteering yourself in order to find out.
And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.
Since he came back to life, having been dead, it demonstrates that God exists. That is not circular. You may disagree with it as a conclusion, but it is not circular.
If it's believed that Jesus was the son of a god before the resurrection or that it takes you to be the son of a god in order to have the foreknowledge that you would come back from the dead, then you have already concluded that a god exists pre-resurrection.
Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?
Is "your fellow atheists" OK?
How about treating everyone on an individual basis based solely on what they say, instead of trying to second guess what their position is on a specific issue by basing your assumption on what other people say who just happen to agree with them on another issue?
Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.
I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.
Fair enough. You won't be taking part in the discussion any more then since you couldn't care less?
Yes, I'll be taking part in any discussion I feel like, and everyone else is at liberty to respond or not respond as they see fit.
Thing is, I do care that people do hold beliefs on this. Just because I do not care what is true doesn't mean I don't care whether something is true. That you fail so abysmally and being able to put forward any means of determining whether what you believe is true actually is true, then I no more care about the significance of what you believe than I do about someone's belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster. It's a nothingness. I think you care too much about the story of Jesus being true, and that can cloud your judgement.
-
They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses
Firstly, Mark is the earliest gospel that the others copied.
So far you have not given much evidence to show this. Things like 'Mark would have included the Lord's prayer if he was quoting Matthew' doesn't count. There might be reasons why he didn't.
Secondly, you do not know if the sources for any of the gospels were eye witnesses.
We are told the names of the principle eyewitnesses, who were the twelve apostles.
We have been over this so many times, you should really stop spouting your nonsense.
-
So you think that the resurrection appearances recorded in the above are not independent of each other? If so, why, please?
You have three narratives that are all different so they are obviously independent but since they are all different, they don't provide corroboration of each other.
So if they are the same, they are independent and not worth trusting, but if they are different they don't corroborate each other and are not worth trusting. Do you see the problem with your line of argument.
You will have noticed that I was not arguing that they corroborated each other, but just pointing out that this part of each of the synoptics are, as best we can tell, independent of each other. Do you agree with that?
As to them corroborating each other, they do not corroborate the individual details in each Synoptic, but they do agree that Jesus was raised from the dead, that women went to the tomb and found it empty, that Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of time and so on. Do you agree with that?
Not only that, but you don't know who their sources were, or if they even had sources (i.e. the gospel authors made them up).
Papias tells us that Peter was Mark's (main) source. As for whether the gospels (four) are based on eye-witness accounts, I suggest, if you are truly interested, that you listen (again?) to the Crossley/Bauckham discussions (two) on Premier Christian Radio's "Unbelievable?" or read Bauckham's book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".
-
What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
Yes. Whether he would is a separate question though.
So we're back to you volunteering yourself in order to find out.
Nope. I have never made a claim that God would raise me from the dead. However, atheists have made a claim that Jesus was not dead. If, repeat if, that is your position, you need to back it up. Is it your position? It isn't, is it? Yours is that you aren't interested what happened (though you keep discussing it).
Please correct me if I've not got the above right. Ta.
And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.
Since he came back to life, having been dead, it demonstrates that God exists. That is not circular. You may disagree with it as a conclusion, but it is not circular.
If it's believed that Jesus was the son of a god before the resurrection or that it takes you to be the son of a god in order to have the foreknowledge that you would come back from the dead, then you have already concluded that a god exists pre-resurrection.
The Christian claim is that since Jesus was dead on the Friday and alive on the Sunday, something special must have happened. Jesus' own explanation was that God had raised him from the dead. It is for you and I to decide whether that is correct. I believe it is. What about you?
Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?
Is "your fellow atheists" OK?
How about treating everyone on an individual basis based solely on what they say, instead of trying to second guess what their position is on a specific issue by basing your assumption on what other people say who just happen to agree with them on another issue?
If you tell me what your position is (and I remember it!) I won't need to guess.
Why so touchy though?
Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.
I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.
Fair enough. You won't be taking part in the discussion any more then since you couldn't care less?
Yes, I'll be taking part in any discussion I feel like, and everyone else is at liberty to respond or not respond as they see fit.
Thing is, I do care that people do hold beliefs on this. Just because I do not care what is true doesn't mean I don't care whether something is true. That you fail so abysmally and being able to put forward any means of determining whether what you believe is true actually is true, then I no more care about the significance of what you believe than I do about someone's belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster. It's a nothingness. I think you care too much about the story of Jesus being true, and that can cloud your judgement.
That's fine, but if you refuse to state your position on something then it will be hard to discuss sensibly with you.
-
They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses
Firstly, Mark is the earliest gospel that the others copied.
So far you have not given much evidence to show this. Things like 'Mark would have included the Lord's prayer if he was quoting Matthew' doesn't count. There might be reasons why he didn't.
Secondly, you do not know if the sources for any of the gospels were eye witnesses.
We are told the names of the principle eyewitnesses, who were the twelve apostles.
We have been over this so many times, you should really stop spouting your nonsense.
Spud, the best explanation I know of (there may be others) on Markan priority is from Mark Goodacre. If you search on NTPod, he has about 75 short podcasts about Christian origins of about 12-15 minutes on loads of subjects as well as, I think, 6 extended ones. The first three of those extended ones are recordings of some of his classes at Duke University and cover the Synoptic Problem, inc. which gospel was written first and whether Q ever existed (he thinks it didn't). I wouldn't cross absolutely every "t" and dot absolutely every "i" of what he says, but would the vast majority. He is very easy to listen to - an excellent scholar and teacher. I've got his podcasts on a USB stick so I can listen to them again when I'm out in the car (which is not that often). I first listened to them as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training and still find them really helpful. He also has a downloadable book called, "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through The Maze". See http://markgoodacre.org/ or http://markgoodacre.org/maze/. You can download it as PDF, read it online or download it for a Kindle.
-
What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
Yes. Whether he would is a separate question though.
So we're back to you volunteering yourself in order to find out.
Nope. I have never made a claim that God would raise me from the dead. However, atheists have made a claim that Jesus was not dead.
Then you're failing to see the parallel I am drawing when you play the silly charade of suggesting others volunteer themselves for a crucifixion to see if they stay alive. They're neither claiming to be Jesus nor claiming that all crucifixion have the same result, so stop doing it.
If, repeat if, that is your position, you need to back it up. Is it your position? It isn't, is it?
Yes, your goal is to shift the burden wherever you can because you yourself have jack all.
Yours is that you aren't interested what happened (though you keep discussing it).
No, I said I don't care, and by that I mean I don't care if it killed Jesus or if it didn't. You however, do care that it did as your beliefs are hinged on it.
I am interested in discovering what is factual, simply because I like to know more.
If it's believed that Jesus was the son of a god before the resurrection or that it takes you to be the son of a god in order to have the foreknowledge that you would come back from the dead, then you have already concluded that a god exists pre-resurrection.
The Christian claim is that since Jesus was dead on the Friday and alive on the Sunday, something special must have happened. Jesus' own explanation was that God had raised him from the dead. It is for you and I to decide whether that is correct. I believe it is. What about you?
This isn't following from my point. If it's already believed that Jesus is the son of a god before the resurrection or that it takes you to be the son of a god to have the foreknowledge that you would come back from the dead, then you've already concluded a god exists without the resurrection. You agree that it would be circular to conclude a god exists based on the resurrection if that was already believed, right?
How about treating everyone on an individual basis based solely on what they say, instead of trying to second guess what their position is on a specific issue by basing your assumption on what other people say who just happen to agree with them on another issue?
If you tell me what your position is (and I remember it!) I won't need to guess.
Why so touchy though?
Go and look back. You asked and immediately made a guess (based on the issue I'm highlighting) without giving me chance to respond.
And touchy? No, I'm simply trying to help us both out here so you don't make the same mistake in the future. I mean you do want to base any assessment of me based on what I say and not others, right?
Yes, I'll be taking part in any discussion I feel like, and everyone else is at liberty to respond or not respond as they see fit.
Thing is, I do care that people do hold beliefs on this. Just because I do not care what is true doesn't mean I don't care whether something is true. That you fail so abysmally and being able to put forward any means of determining whether what you believe is true actually is true, then I no more care about the significance of what you believe than I do about someone's belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster. It's a nothingness. I think you care too much about the story of Jesus being true, and that can cloud your judgement.
That's fine, but if you refuse to state your position on something then it will be hard to discuss sensibly with you.
It's hard to discuss sensibly with you if you just blurt out what you think I think instead of giving me the time to actually tell you myself.
And I haven't refused anything. I've made myself perfectly clear on more than one occasion. Again, just go and look back at this exchange and you will see that I've said I don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.
-
They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses
Firstly, Mark is the earliest gospel that the others copied.
So far you have not given much evidence to show this. Things like 'Mark would have included the Lord's prayer if he was quoting Matthew' doesn't count. There might be reasons why he didn't.
Like the fact that he didn't know of it. The same applies to the Sermon on the Mount. Do you honestly think Mark would have left these things out if he had known of them? Furthermore, there are places where Mark seems to have extras compared with the other gospels such as the story of the exorcism at Gerasa (the one where the demons move to a herd of pigs). However his extra bits tend to are more mundane. So you have to ask if Mark had a thing against the Beatitudes but liked pigs. It's much more likely that the revisions went the other way.
Secondly, you do not know if the sources for any of the gospels were eye witnesses.
We are told the names of the principle eyewitnesses, who were the twelve apostles.
I asked Hope this question once but he failed to answer it: what are the names of the twelve apostles?
Even if you can give me an unambiguous list using each of the four gospels, you still don't know if any of them were the sources of any of the gospels.
-
So if they are the same, they are independent and not worth trusting, but if they are different they don't corroborate each other and are not worth trusting. Do you see the problem with your line of argument.
No I don't because you are deliberately misrepresenting the point.
What you need is independent sources for the same event, not independent sources for different events.
Not only that, the independent sources have to be traceable back to different contemporary witnesses. It's no good claiming Bob and Carol are independent if they both got the story off Alice.
You will have noticed that I was not arguing that they corroborated each other, but just pointing out that this part of each of the synoptics are, as best we can tell, independent of each other. Do you agree with that?
Yes they are, but it doesn't help your position, because you can't even show that the "sources" are not the authors of the accounts.
-
[Spud, the best explanation I know of (there may be others) on Markan priority is from Mark Goodacre.
I would endorse this. It was him who came up with the Geresene pigs point. He put it more memorably than I did: "If Mark was editing Matthew would he really think the gospel needed more pigs and less theology".
-
Like the fact that he didn't know of it.
The possibility that he did know about it seems no less valid. Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy suggests that Peter, supervising Mark, says to him, "Cut this out. This will do. Enough has been said".
The same applies to the Sermon on the Mount. Do you honestly think Mark would have left these things out if he had known of them? Furthermore, there are places where Mark seems to have extras compared with the other gospels
And this could rather indicate that Mark was using Matthew plus another eyewitness who could add more detail.
such as the story of the exorcism at Gerasa (the one where the demons move to a herd of pigs). However his extra bits tend to are more mundane. So you have to ask if Mark had a thing against the Beatitudes but liked pigs. It's much more likely that the revisions went the other way.
Well I think the reason for that is that Matthew wrote soon after the church was born. Compare with the birth of the nation of Israel. Not long after the Exodus they were given instructions on how to live as God's people, by Moses. Matthew was doing a similar thing. Mark is written as a fast-moving drama, so it cannot include long sermons.
I'm afraid I'm utterly convinced Matthew wrote first.
I asked Hope this question once but he failed to answer it: what are the names of the twelve apostles?
Simon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot.
Even if you can give me an unambiguous list using each of the four gospels, you still don't know if any of them were the sources of any of the gospels.
That's approaching the question from the pov of someone outside the church.
If you wanted to know how a horse behaves when someone climbs onto its back, who would you ask: a person who has studied horse anatomy and physiology and can name all their bones, or a person who has looked after horses since they were young? It's like that with the gospels. If you don't ask someone who is connected to them through the church, you won't get the truth.
At least we are back on topic though :)
-
Spud, the best explanation I know of (there may be others) on Markan priority is from Mark Goodacre.
Cheers Alan, I may try that some time.