There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.
C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,
"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."
http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html
I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?
There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.
C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,
"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."
http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html
I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?
The burden of proof is on CS Lewis who being an Oxford professor of literature could probably have laid his hands on some....and of course those who positively refute them.
I think the bloke who is just interested in reading the paper, frequenting Paddypower and bothering Naebady and has no opinion on Jesus or God and therefore no burden of proof is the actual myth here.
Agree with the first part of your first sentence but then I once met an Oxford Professor of Philosophy who told me women couldn't do philosophy. So your rather sad attempt at an appeal to authority doesn't wash.Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.
Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.Stop talking pish
Stop talking pishThe only ''pish'' going down here is your 'An Oxford professor once said something stupid to me so that wraps it up for expertise' schtick.
The only ''pish'' going down here is your 'An Oxford professor once said something stupid to me so that wraps it up for expertise' schtick.Except that isn't what was said but there we are. You appealled to the Oxford Professor stuff, I merely pointed out that it wasn't that useful.
Bullshit.
"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art."
He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."
Bullshit.WRONGGG!!!!!!!!!!
Ever heard of the Iliad?
WRONGGG!!!!!!!!!!Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.
Of course these days vox populi trumps expertise.
I think Professor Lewis would have recognised the differences in the fine detail between the New Testament and the Iliad.
Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.As I said....the triumph of cyber dilettantism over actual expertise.
Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.Lewis states the trilemma as a 'It comes down to this' position.
Lewis states the trilemma as a 'It comes down to this' position.
New Atheists...
Except that it quite obviously doesn't - hence it's a crap argument.
::)
Except that it quite obviously doesn't - hence it's a crap argument.I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.
::)
I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.If you rearrange all the words in the two paragraphs above, they make sense in standard, comprehensible English.
Why the trilemma is unpopular is more to do with wanting to avoid stigmatising what they referred to in Lewis's time as the mad.
If you rearrange all the words in the two paragraphs above, they make sense in standard, comprehensible English.I have had a go with some of the words --
Maybe.
I have had a go with some of the words --Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.
In the whacky world of a pathological hatred of atheism.
Is that a start?
Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.
I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.
Why the trilemma is unpopular is more to do with wanting to avoid stigmatising what they referred to in Lewis's time as the mad.
Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.
To the (limited) extent that makes any sense at all, it's utter drivel.To call belief that Jesus was an historical figure completely unwarranted is itself completely unwarranted.
The trilemma falls down right at the start because it makes the completely unwarranted assumption that we are dealing with a wholly accurate account of a real person's life. Even if you ignore that gargantuan hole in what passes for its 'logic', it doesn't get much better - people are complicated. After all, all religious or superstitious people are deluded to a certain degree - doesn't mean they can be summed up by the word "mad". ;)
To call belief that Jesus was an historical figure completely unwarranted is itself completely unwarranted.
That isn't what I said. Want to try again?I feel then you don't understand your own motivations to atheism or rather it would be un PC to express them.
I feel then you don't understand your own motivations to atheism or rather it would be un PC to express them.
Mad, bad or The son of God is a pretty good summary of possible positions.
What is your view of the dilemma?
So you answered a poipt you think Stranger really wanted to make rather than the one hhe did?I dealt with his claim that to treat Jesus as a historical figure is completely unwarranted.It isn't.
I dealt with his claim that to treat Jesus as a historical figure is completely unwarranted.It isn't.
I dealt with his reluctance at using the word mad....as a piece of contemporary political correctness.
Mad, bad or The son of God is a pretty good summary of possible positions.
What is your view of the dilemma?
My view is that it's a pile of dingo's kidneys.Douglas Adams quote.......I think I'm going to hhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllllll....Yek.
Douglas Adams quote.......I think I'm going to hhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllllll....Yek.
My view is that it's a pile of dingo's kidneys. Do you want me to explain again?Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.
To repeat (and try reading what I say this time). The first massive problem with it is that, even though Jesus may have been an historical figure, to assume that the accounts we have of his life are wholly accurate, is a rather silly starting point.
Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.
So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.
Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.
So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.
Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.'andles, do you come yo this board just to get a good battering because I cant see any other reason ?
So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.
Bullshit.
Ever heard of the Iliad?
Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.
Bullshit.
Ever heard of the Iliad?
The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.
The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.
If Jesus didn't do the miracles, then why don't we find books or letters denying them: say, an interview with blind Bartimaeus, still blind despite the Christians claiming he'd been healed. Instead we find a lot of pseudogospels which were written in the centuries after Christ, some with good intentions, some with bad. These read more like legend, and were excluded from the new testament canon because they were not eyewitness testimony or based on such.
The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.
If Jesus didn't do the miracles, then why don't we find books or letters denying them: say, an interview with blind Bartimaeus, still blind despite the Christians claiming he'd been healed.
Instead we find a lot of pseudogospels which were written in the centuries after Christ, some with good intentions, some with bad. These read more like legend, and were excluded from the new testament canon because they were not eyewitness testimony or based on such.
Vlad, you are trying to piece together the origin of a religious cult 2000 years after it happened,I think you are mistaking me for one of those Jesus myth guys.
I think you are mistaking me for one of those Jesus myth guys.
So, you're not a Christian and you don't agree with Lewis after all? ::)er I think that Vlad's quotemine was to imply that you thought he was a mythicist. Now fair enough even with his quotemine that makes no sense but this is Vlad.
So, you're not a Christian and you don't agree with Lewis after all? ::)Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.
Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.
I think Jesus has been mainstream history for years as have his claims of divinity. To revisit the issue in the way JM's do smacks of desperation.
Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.
I think Jesus has been mainstream history for years as have his claims of divinity. To revisit the issue in the way JM's do smacks of desperation.
Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.
Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.No I just said Jesus claim of divinity.I think you were so taken up by receiving the gift of Ted Rogers channelling you took your eye of the ball and have er, made a Ted Rogers of it.
No I just said Jesus claim of divinity.I think you were so taken up by receiving the gift of Ted Rogers channelling you took your eye of the ball and have er, made a Ted Rogers of it.And again, I think you are wrong there. It's not mainstream history that Jesus claimed divinity. It's mainstream history that there are some who think that a person called Jesus who probably is based on an historical person is represented as having said some things by some of those who said they followed him some of whom believe those claims to be a claim of divinity as they defined it.
It sounds like it's my claim that Jesus claim to divinity was mainstream history against yours that it wasn't.That must be your admiration for Lewis that led you to try a false dichotomy. And no, it isn't just your opinion against mine, and you have misrepresented the disagreement.
I think Jesus as a travelling entertainer and medicine man is a relatively recent view.
That must be your admiration for Lewis that led you to try a false dichotomy. And no, it isn't just your opinion against mine, and you have misrepresented the disagreement.Are you still in Ted Rogers mode?
I'm talking about how the study of the history of 'Jesus' is currently studied in schools and universities in the UK. Treating the NT as not indicative of something a person called Jesus who may likely existed definitely said, does not have anything to do with treating him as a definite figure who was an entertainer.
Are you still in Ted Rogers mode?No. But you appear to be still in evasion mode.
Oh come on, claims are made about a lot things, which aren't credible. The Benny Hinn guy has claimed his healing scam has made amputated limbs grow back!According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.
According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.
According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.
I'm seriously worried for the welfare of the NPF: it has taken quite a battering of late.
Might it be because those writing the stories about Jesus were biased? How do you even know that this Bartimaeus even existed or, if he did, that he was blind, and even then that the the story about him being healed isn't propaganda for Jesus?
There are clear risks of mistakes and lies here that you'd have to assess - so have you?
On what basis can you be sure that anything that was included in the NT was eye-witness testimony or was based on eye-witness testimony - even if it was, which can't be known, how would you resolve the risk that this testimony could include mistakes or lies?
Stating claims as facts is dishonest.The point is that if Jesus did the miracles in the way it says he did, they didn't rely on adrenaline.
The point is that if Jesus did the miracles in the way it says he did, they didn't rely on adrenaline.Since you cannot show that they happened that's an assertion about something you are asserting.
These are the questions I think CS Lewis answers in his essay from which I quoted. Because back then people just didn't write using the style in which the gospels are written, unless they were writing history.That's a non sequitur to Gordon's post.
According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.
These are the questions I think CS Lewis answers in his essay from which I quoted. Because back then people just didn't write using the style in which the gospels are written, unless they were writing history.
I see you've avoided my question about how you've assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT.
See also: forks, 'andles for.Burden of proof.
Burden of proof.Easily done.
As lead members of the posse you and Gordon are the ones asserting the risk of lying.
Prove that risk then.
Burden of proof.
As lead members of the posse you and Gordon are the ones asserting the risk of lying.
Prove that risk then.
Police statements regarding the Hillsborough disaster, Profumo's assurances in the HoC, President 'have a cigar' Clinton's assurances about his sexual conduct etc etc etc.But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.
Making mistakes and telling lies are known human behaviours, so they are clear risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance: tell me, Vlad, do you believe everything you read or are told?
But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.... which is irrelevant to (a) the point that people tell lies therefore (b) the possibility of lies in the NT is one that can't be ruled out of court, even though conceding the point is kryptonite to you. Not our problem.
But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.That Joe Bloggs said the 9.37 to Three Bridges was on time, and it was, is not a piece of evidence for anything about Jesus as you seem to suggest. Examples of people lying are not 'countered' by people telling the truth. In addition, people can also be mistaken.
It seems to me that you are just being cynical and that is no substitute for actuality.
But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.
It seems to me that you are just being cynical and that is no substitute for actuality.
Easily done.Easily countered.
Do people ever lie?
1) Yes;
Easily countered.Again that isn't a counter.
Do people tell the truth........Yes.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire Shakes.
Easily countered.The bonfire is still ablaze.
Do people tell the truth........Yes.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire Shakes.
Easily countered.So, this Mohammad chap.
Do people tell the truth........Yes.
Easily countered.
Do people tell the truth........Yes.
Police statements regarding the Hillsborough disaster, Profumo's assurances in the HoC, President 'have a cigar' Clinton's assurances about his sexual conduct etc etc etc.
Making mistakes and telling lies are known human behaviours, so they are clear risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance: tell me, Vlad, do you believe everything you read or are told?
Oh come on, claims are made about a lot things, which aren't credible. The Benny Hinn guy has claimed his healing scam has made amputated limbs grow back!Do you have a link for that Floo? I watched some disturbing videos of his antics on youtube last night. Apparently the people who go up to the front are vetted as they queue, and not allowed up if its thought they won't be healed. So I think the 'healing' that does occur is psychosomatic. But I don't think we can say that about the resurrection and all the other miracles in the gospels.
Do you have a link for that Floo? I watched some disturbing videos of his healing services on youtube last night. Apparently the people who go up for healing are vetted as they queue, and not allowed up if its thought they won't be healed. So I think the 'healing' that does occur is psychosomatic. But I don't think we can say that about the resurrection and all the other miracles in the gospels.His are televised, unlike any claim in the gospels.
In those cases the people lied to get themselves out of trouble. The gospels contain teaching that was certain to get the authors into trouble from the religious leaders, such as the claim that Jesus had declared all food to be 'clean', or the seven woes against the pharisees in Matthew 23.
Do you have a link for that Floo? I watched some disturbing videos of his antics on youtube last night. Apparently the people who go up to the front are vetted as they queue, and not allowed up if its thought they won't be healed. So I think the 'healing' that does occur is psychosomatic. But I don't think we can say that about the resurrection and all the other miracles in the gospels.
Do you have a link for that Floo? I watched some disturbing videos of his antics on youtube last night. Apparently the people who go up to the front are vetted as they queue, and not allowed up if its thought they won't be healed. So I think the 'healing' that does occur is psychosomatic. But I don't think we can say that about the resurrection and all the other miracles in the gospels.Why are they a special case?
Do you have a link for that Floo? I watched some disturbing videos of his antics on youtube last night. Apparently the people who go up to the front are vetted as they queue, and not allowed up if its thought they won't be healed. So I think the 'healing' that does occur is psychosomatic. But I don't think we can say that about the resurrection and all the other miracles in the gospels.
WRONGGG!!!!!!!!!!
Of course these days vox populi trumps expertise.
I think Professor Lewis would have recognised the differences in the fine detail between the New Testament and the Iliad.
Was the Iliad the only book you were thinking of?No. It was merely one I assumed you might have heard of.
What makes the gospels different is the claim that God became a man
That seems to be what CS Lewis is getting at.There seems to be some doubt in your mind. Do you want to take some time to get things straight. While you are doing that, look up Aristophanes and Virgil.
The other thing is that the Iliad is thought to have been written centuries after the events it was based on,The Iliad is fiction.
so that at the time of writing the supernatural events that embellish it obviously couldn't be confirmed by living eyewitnesses.Neither could the supernatural events described in the Gospels.
The gospels however contain numerous references to living eyewitnessesWhich eye witnesses were still alive when each of the gospels were written. The time period in question is ~70CE to ~90CE. Give evidence for your claims.
who could be questioned by the first readers. Eg Jairus, Alphaeus, Simon of Cyrene
Paul sums it up in 1 Corinthians 15:6: "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."5,000 people witnessed the death and resurrection of Gerald my pet hamster. You need to start worshipping him now.
So people lie and people tell the truth. How do you tell the difference between the two?
Erm,erm,erm,erm,erm,erm,erm, .......Iliad!Your point?
Ha Ha Ha.
Erm,erm,erm,erm,erm,erm,erm, .......Iliad!
Ha Ha Ha.
The bonfire is still ablaze.More relevant is that people misinterpret or misrepresent what was actually said or reported when recording it decades later.
So people lie and people tell the truth. How do you tell the difference between the two?
Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance.
Sorry atheist guys, you either universally apply the principles you are here outlining or else it's special pleading, genetic fallacyville.Which principles do you think which people are applying consistently?
Which principles do you think which people are applying consistently?People lie
People lie
People are mistaken
People see mirages
People have frontal lobe epilepsy........for starters.
Oh and the favourite "Not trusting anything written 20 years after an event".
People lie
People are mistaken
People see mirages
People have frontal lobe epilepsy........for starters.
Oh and the favourite "Not trusting anything written 20 years after an event".
Oh and the favourite "Not trusting anything written 20 years after an event".Ask somebody you know to relate an event that happened to them twenty years ago and then write it down. Do you think your written account would be a completely accurate description? Then add a couple more people in the chain. Do you still think your account would be accurate?
Ask somebody you know to relate an event that happened to them twenty years ago and then write it down. Do you think your written account would be a completely accurate description? Then add a couple more people in the chain. Do you still think your account would be accurate?That's all very well Jeremy but do you consistently apply your doubts?
That's all very well Jeremy but do you consistently apply your doubts?I certainly do as far as the gospels are concerned.
That's all very well Jeremy but do you consistently apply your doubts?
For a lot of peopleIMV the answer to that would be in the negative.
How about an example of somebody not being consistent about it - rather than empty accusations?It's not important. It doesn't matter whether I consistently apply the same arguments to other areas. This topic is about the gospels and whether my points are valid as applied to them. Vlad's post was a typical attempt to distract from the emptiness of his own arguments.
The Iliad is fiction.How do you know it wasn't based on historical events?
Neither could the supernatural events described in the Gospels.Of course they could. We might not have evidence to prove it but there still could have been people around to confirm the miracles.
Which eye witnesses were still alive when each of the gospels were written. The time period in question is ~70CE to ~90CE. Give evidence for your claims.I don't know. Those details aren't given. That their names are given suggests that they were at least known to some readers, which suggests that your time period is off.
Where is your evidence that any of these people were still alive when the gospels were written.
5,000 people witnessed the death and resurrection of Gerald my pet hamster. You need to start worshipping him now.Have you got the names and addresses of a few of them please.
No. It was merely one I assumed you might have heard of.
.... look up Aristophanes and Virgil.
How do you know it wasn't based on historical events?Doesn't matter whether it is based on fact or not, it is fiction. Either that or Zeus is the true God.
Of course they could. We might not have evidence to prove it but there still could have been people around to confirm the miracles.
I don't know. Those details aren't given.
That their names are given suggests that they were at least known to some readers which suggests that your time period is off.There's a difference between "known to" and "known of". I know of Winston Churchill and you might cite him in a book about World War 2, but that doesn't mean he was alive when I was born.
Have you got the names and addresses of a few of them please.Aha. So you agree having more details than just there were x number of them is important. Please hold your Bible to the same standards of evidence as you are trying to hold me to here.
That's all very well Jeremy but do you consistently apply your doubts?Jeremy will answer that for himself.
Jeremy will answer that for himself.To equate Christianity with alien spaceships and abduction shows an extremely partial grasp of what is being "apologised".
But for me there is a fundamental principle that needs to be recognised - namely that where you are being asked to belief something, the level of incredulity that is in the claim is critical to the requirement for evidence.
So imagine if someone made a claim that a red car passed them on a zebra crossing, and that claim only came to light 50 years after the event. Now the 'radio silence' between the event and its reporting would certainly lead to a degree of scepticism, but the unremarkable nature of the claim might lead us to conclude 'fine, if you say so' - effectively a nominal acceptance because, frankly accepting or rejecting the claim has no ramifications.
Take another example - someone claimed that an alien spaceship passed them on a zebra crossing, abducted them and returned them a day later. And that now certain people can have special powers but only if they accept the story as true. And, again only reported 50 years after the event. Well now the claim is extraordinary and therefore a shrugging 'if you say so' will not do - there needs to serious evidence to back up that extraordinary claim or my scepticism will lead me to reject it until or unless that evidence is forthcoming.
And that is where many Christian apologists play a deeply disingenuous game. The notion that because there are certain things in the bible that are of the 'fine, if you say so' variety, that therefore we should accept all that is in there. And the presence of little details that seem plausible, or even can be proved to be correct, makes no difference whatsoever as to scepticism over the extraordinary claims - just as were the alien abduction story to claim that the weather was bright and sunny on that particular day, and that to be true, wouldn't make one iota of difference in accepting the alien abduction to be true without extraordinary evidence.
To equate Christianity with alien spaceships and abduction shows an extremely partial grasp of what is being "apologised".Nope - unless you come from a perspective of already believing, and therefore not being objective, the claim that a man died and came back to life and was god is not more or less plausible than my alien abduction story. That you see them as fundamentally different is special pleading in the extreme.
Christianity is a two parter. It's an anthropology showing what we are like and what our needs and depths are and what God has done about it. An alien encounter is a pale abbreviation of what we are being called to.
To equate Christianity with alien spaceships and abduction shows an extremely partial grasp of what is being "apologised".
As usual you miss the point: which is that some claims are inherently trivial whether they are true or false compared with other claims that definitely aren't trivial - it is the difference between saying 'Jesus was partial to marmalade on his toast' and 'Jesus was dead and then wasn't'.It isn't rocket science is it?
Do you get it now?
Of everyone on this forum Dicky has perhaps the fullest and therefore the least caricature view of Christianity.
Of the rest the central point of Christianity are the miracles. That misses that Christianity is also an anthropology. A framework in which mans depths and needs can be explored. Naturalism however merely provides cold facts about material and the scientism which most posters suffer from provides the necessary faith component that a personal fact and material quotient will be satisfied.
In short then you are wrong to caricature Christianity. Someone will also chime in and say what about religion x or y, yes what about them? They are often caricatured as well as a kind of Christianity.But what do you know about them and what business do you have decrying Christianity as not understanding them when you detest those religions as well?
As usual you miss the point: which is that some claims are inherently trivial whether they are true or false compared with other claims that definitely aren't trivial - it is the difference between saying 'Jesus was partial to marmalade on his toast' and 'Jesus was dead and then wasn't'.But now I'm asking myself whether I'm in debate with someone with a working understanding of Christianity, a framework rather than a caricature or merely someone who doesn't believe that anywhere or at anytime death can be reversed by a sufficiently able agency.
Do you get it now?
That misses that Christianity is also an anthropology. A framework in which mans depths and needs can be explored. Naturalism however merely provides cold facts about material and the scientism which most posters suffer from provides the necessary faith component that a personal fact and material quotient will be satisfied.I don't think anyone denies that the bible contains all sorts of stories that help us understand and think about human nature and how we interact with each other - the arthropology as you call it. But in this respect the bible is far from unique. Indeed there are countless myths, legends, parables, fairy stories, works of fiction and of fact that do exactly the same - some are far older than the bible and the tradition continues to this day.
I don't think anyone denies that the bible contains all sorts of stories that help us understand and think about human nature and how we interact with each other - the arthropology as you call it. But in this respect the bible is far from unique. Indeed there are countless myths, legends, parables, fairy stories, works of fiction and of fact that do exactly the same - some are far older than the bible and the tradition continues to this day.
The bible is just one of many in this respect - not very unique in its message, nor, actually in its narrative.
And your point about naturalism is bonkers - do you really think that a naturalismist refuses to find meaning in the works of Shakespeare because his plays are either complete fiction or not completely factually accurate. Of course not - Shakespeares plays ad their interpretation lies entirely in the world of naturalism - there is no supernatural element.
But now I'm asking myself whether I'm in debate with someone with a working understanding of Christianity, a framework rather than a caricature or merely someone who doesn't believe that anywhere or at anytime death can be reversed by a sufficiently able agency.
You've moved effortless from what Christians 'understand' from anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance, and the seemingly yet to be assessed risks of mistakes or lies figuring in these accounts, straight to death being reversible via some 'able agency'.Exactly - if we are asked to believe what is in the bible is literally true then we need evidence to back that up - particularly for the extraordinary claims.
I'd like to think you'll see the problems in your (lack of) reasoning here - but I suspect you won't.
To equate Christianity with alien spaceships and abduction shows an extremely partial grasp of what is being "apologised".To claim that Christianity cannot be compared with alien spaceships and abductions shows an extremely partial grasp of reality.
Christianity is a two parter. It's an anthropology showing what we are likeGullible fools for the most part?
and what our needs and depths are and what God has done about it.Who cares what a figment of your imagination has done about anything?
An alien encounter is a pale abbreviation of what we are being called to.That's just your wishful thinking. You keep telling yourself that your fantasy is better than the fantasies of alien abductees, if it makes you feel better.
Exactly - if we are asked to believe what is in the bible is literally true then we need evidence to back that up - particularly for the extraordinary claims.Well that's a straw man for a start.
Well that's a straw man for a start.Do you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead or not?
Also the extraordinary claims are the alpha and omega of your bible bowdlerisation and caricature forming.
Do you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead or not?I do as my experience gives me no reason to dismiss it and because it fits the available history.
In what way does this address the risks of mistakes or lies in the content of the NT, such as in the details you note here. That supporters of a cause might suffer as a consequence does not imply that their cause is justified.It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true. Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that when the Koran says Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion, Mohammed actually did say that. We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).
Doesn't matter whether it is based on fact or not, it is fiction. Either that or Zeus is the true God.
Not really. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses, nor did they have easy access to eye witnesses. Don't forget that the journey required to interrogate eye witnesses - assuming they were still alive - would have been long and hazardous.
So you claim there were eye witnesses still alive when the gospels were written but you can cite no evidence that these alleged eye witnesses existed. Your claim is therefore void and your argument has collapsed.
There's a difference between "known to" and "known of". I know of Winston Churchill and you might cite him in a book about World War 2, but that doesn't mean he was alive when I was born.
Aha. So you agree having more details than just there were x number of them is important. Please hold your Bible to the same standards of evidence as you are trying to hold me to here.
It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true. Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion. We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).
I do.So this thing you are claiming is a straw man i.e. we are asked to believe that extraordinary claims in the Bible are literally true is not a straw man.
How about the traditions quoted by Paul, such as "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." To quote Fr. Dwight Longenecker:Paul claims to have received his gospel through revelation and not the testimony of others. He explicitly denies that his gospel comes from eye witnesses.
"What these early Christian creeds show is that the so-called mythological elements of the gospels (angels, resurrection, ascension into heaven, Son of God) were not later additions and accretions to the tradition, but were part of the beliefs about Jesus from the very earliest days, beliefs that the gospels attest to, Paul affirms, and Christians today still hold."
https://strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/
So this thing you are claiming is a straw man i.e. we are asked to believe that extraordinary claims in the Bible are literally true is not a straw man.That is not the straw man the straw man is that I am asking people to believe that what is in the bible is literally true. Some of it is metaphorical and allegorical. However should one choose the metaphorical and allegorical meaning at any point you should consider what it is a metaphor and allegory for.
Do you believe that Jesus literally changed water into wine and fed 5,000 people with a few fishes and loaves? Do you believe that Jesus literally healed blind people and lepers?With God what is not possible?
It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true.
Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that when the Koran says Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion, Mohammed actually did say that.
We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).
Too, often man relies on what he reads rather than the message in what he reads.
Does the writer set out to make men question and think for themselves what the life of Christ really means?
Does he speak only to reveal his own thoughts?
Or is it the same old story? trying to convey their own beliefs onto others?
The most original writers bring to life the experience of having found and believed what is written within the pages.
We see Christ portrayed as a caring and powerful human being but giving the Glory for everything he does to God.
If Christ wanted just fame or even fortune with what he did, that would have been easy. Charge for the service.
But the things of God cannot be bought and they are certainly from the human themselves.
Christ tells us what God wants not just from us, what he wants for us and that suffering was never his intention.
We all take what we will but it is what we can receive in truth from the facts of Christ which count.
With God what is not possible?Given that we have no evidence that god even exists your point is moot.
Given that we have no evidence that god even exists your point is moot.Prove naturalism.
Prove that god exists and then we can move onto your question.
Prove naturalism.Burden of proof: shifted.
Prove naturalism.
Another thread going absolutely nowhere due to the terminally brain-washed Christians.
That is not the straw man the straw man is that I am asking people to believe that what is in the bible is literally true. Some of it is metaphorical and allegorical. However should one choose the metaphorical and allegorical meaning at any point you should consider what it is a metaphor and allegory for.
With God what is not possible?
However since you cover these in a sentence they are not the essence of the New testament nor necessary for salvation.
Therefore to me I am merely talking about a select few miracles with someone who doesn't believe them rather than addressing Christianity.
Prove naturalism.He asked you first!
Burden of proof: shifted.I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof Shaker.I don't need to shift anything.
He asked you first!I'm afraid naturalism has had a burden of proof since before any of us were born.
I think you are missing the point of the thread here. This thread is not about Christianity as a whole but the "Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?" Therefore, it seems reasonable to talk about the fine details of the gospel and whether they are made up without people whining about essences and salvation.All I'm saying is that focussing on miracles is not answering the thread title.
I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof Shaker.I don't need to shift anything.Except that that was exactly what you did.
All I'm saying is that focussing on miracles is not answering the thread title.
I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof...
...I don't need to shift anything.
I'm afraid naturalism has had a burden of proof since before any of us were born.Got your teflon suit on today I see.
Questioning the existence of your god (which was the context) is not the same as claiming the truth of naturalism.I'm afraid it is since without God the claim goes there would be no nature and since there is nature then if God does not exist then the assumption is that nature is here on it's own.
Questioning the existence of your god (which was the context) is not the same as claiming the truth of naturalism.I'm afraid it is since without God the claim goes there would be no nature and since there is nature then if God does not exist then the assumption is that nature is here on it's own.
Or it could be naturalism.....so stop jerking around with ''speshul'' pleading. All have a burden of proof.
There could be a different god to yours, there could be multiple gods, there could be other supernatural beings, nature could exist alongside magic but without any gods,
Or it could be naturalism.....so stop jerking around with ''speshul'' pleading.
All have a burden of proof.
Stop posting without thinking. Yes, it could be naturalism but, as I said to begin with, questioning the existence of your god is not the same thing as asserting naturalism.Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence. End of.
If you assert the truth of your god, it's up to you to give reasons to believe it. If someone asserts the truth of naturalism then it's up to them to give reasons for that. One is not the negation of the other.
Oh, and I'll add special pleading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) to the (very long) list of things you don't understand.
Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence. End of.Point of pedantry: the word naturalistic in your post is redundant.
Point of pedantry: the word naturalistic in your post is redundant.That is a fine example of the shite naturalistic argument.
Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence.
That is a fine example of the shite naturalistic argument.No, it's a decent example of correct English usage as well as some philosophical savvy.
Point of pedantry: The word ''naturalistic'' in my reply to your post is redundant, Shaker.Along with the rest of them, I agree.
And here was me thinking it was the alleged miracles (like not staying dead) that for Christians was a critical factor in Jesus being not just another human: where the 'detail' (such a small number of loaves and fishes was all Jesus required to feed a large crowd) of these alleged miracles was a intrinsic aspect of them being, er, miraculous.I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?
So let's ignore the miracle claims then, which leaves you with anecdotal tales of uncertain provenance concerning a no doubt charismatic preacher who managed to annoy the local authorities to the extent they got rid of him.
I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?
Vlad there's so much in nature that can be explained and anything that hasn't been explained nature's out there we can go and study it, it's real it can be seen or heard with the appropriate equipment.
Now this delusional, superstitious, god Jesus stuff of yours Vlad?
Try to contest people that don't take your delusions seriously, without your usual, crude word salad of language, ordinary decent English words are plenty good enough, sides that, your crude use and misuse of language makes it far less likely for you to be taken seriously, I do wonder why you can't see this?
Best regards ippy
I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?
Paul claims to have received his gospel through revelation and not the testimony of others. He explicitly denies that his gospel comes from eye witnesses.Doesn't he say somewhere that he went to visit the other apostles to check he was preaching the same message as they were?
Could you explain where Paul talks about angels and healing of sick people and turning water into wine and everything in the gospels except the bare bones of the death and resurrection?
Don't forget that you are supposed to be trying to show that eye witnesses were involved in the production of the gospels. Paul's letters are closer to Jesus in time and in human connections but they are frustratingly sparse on the subject of the life of Jesus as well as explicitly denying that he had human sources.
Doesn't he say somewhere that he went to visit the other apostles to check he was preaching the same message as they were?He describes a meeting with Cephas (Peter) and James in Jerusalem. But he never attributes any of the things he preaches to either of them.
OK let's look at those two claims. What is your evidence that all need saving and what is your evidence that Jesus is the saviour?The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
If you look at other religions they are commandment following, scales of justice or technique based.
What evidence do you have that there is no alienation, that it is down to people and that law-following or techniques can actually save or whether only God can take it upon himself.
The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
If you look at other religions they are commandment following, scales of justice or technique based.
What evidence do you have that there is no alienation, that it is down to people and that law-following or techniques can actually save or whether only God can take it upon himself.
The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
Theobabble must be infectious: Alan is already fluent and now you too, Vlad.
This effort of yours is utterly incomprehensible.
Theobabble must be infectious: Alan is already fluent and now you too, Vlad.To the wilfully ignorant perhaps.
This effort of yours is utterly incomprehensible.
To the wilfully ignorant perhaps.
To the wilfully ignorant perhaps.
Read it back to your self carefully and see if it really made your point clearly or not.
Vlad, the point about evidence is that it distinguishes between rival hypotheses. You can't just choose a bunch of things in the world that are consistent with your idea and then claim them as evidence for said idea unless they are also inconsistent with other ideas.Which would all be very well if the issue had been again about God the father but it was about the need for salvation in (and what could meet that need).
There is nothing here that is inconsistent with a godless universe or with several different god concepts.
This is a bit like Einstein citing the fact that stuff falls down as evidence for general relativity...
Vlad, the point about evidence is that it distinguishes between rival hypotheses. You can't just choose a bunch of things in the world that are consistent with your idea and then claim them as evidence for said idea unless they are also inconsistent with other ideas.First of all. You either believe there is alienation or you do not.
There is nothing here that is inconsistent with a godless universe or with several different god concepts.
This is a bit like Einstein citing the fact that stuff falls down as evidence for general relativity...
Which would all be very well if the issue had been again about God the father but it was about the need for salvation in (and what could meet that need).
First of all. You either believe there is alienation or you do not.
There is plenty of evidence of alienation at international, national, group, interpersonal and within personalities.
This therefore is what there needs to be salvation from.
Can this be achieved by Law following? hardly since the establishment of laws can have the opposing effect.
Can this be achieved by ''techniques'' maybe a shallow and short term fix is possible but techniques have the draw back that we need to keep using them.
Given then an ability to save from the predicament is not really evident in technique and law following then external assistance seems to be an alternative.
It applies equally well. You were (if I understood your rather obscure post correctly) referencing the fact that humans/the human condition isn't as 'good' as we are able to imagine.
That isn't evidence that we need saving from something or that being 'saved' is possible. It is just a fact of human existence that is perfectly consistent with no god or many other gods - with the possibility of being 'saved' and with no such possibility.
This just doesn't follow. You can't point to something unpleasant in life and just conclude that we need 'salvation' from it. Where is the evidence that it isn't just the natural state of affairs that we have to live with as best we can?
Where is the evidence that 'external assistance' is actually available?
It applies equally well. You were (if I understood your rather obscure post correctly) referencing the fact that humans/the human condition isn't as 'good' as we are able to imagine.As far as I can see your statement here is either merely restating what I am saying or it is saying good is merely a matter of the imagination and subsequently there is no real problem of alienation.
What's all this got to do with whether fine detail in the gospels is made up or not?We are debating what the fine detail in the Gospels is about.
First of all. You either believe there is alienation or you do not.
There is plenty of evidence of alienation at international, national, group, interpersonal and within personalities.
This therefore is what there needs to be salvation from.
Can this be achieved by Law following? hardly since the establishment of laws can have the opposing effect.
Can this be achieved by ''techniques'' maybe a shallow and short term fix is possible but techniques have the draw back that we need to keep using them.
Given then an ability to save from the predicament is not really evident in technique and law following then external assistance seems to be an alternative.
Please translate this into English.It is in English.
We are debating what the fine detail in the Gospels is about.
So those are acts, miracles, preaching, and teaching. and not just miracles.
We are debating what the fine detail in the Gospels is about.
So those are acts, miracles, preaching, and teaching. and not just miracles.
It is in English.
As far as I can see your statement here is either merely restating what I am saying or it is saying good is merely a matter of the imagination and subsequently there is no real problem of alienation.
I've avoided the words Good or bad or unpleasant (which has little to do specifically with Good or Bad) and used the word alienation.
Logic and Vlad is DOOMED, DOOMED. ;DCheerleader's arrived.
Cheerleader's arrived.Said the pantomime dame.....
Said the pantomime dame.....
Oh no she didn't......
Said the pantomime dame.....A Panto dame requires a couple of huge false tits..............and right on cue you and Owlswing turn up.
The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.I don't see how that means we all need saving. It's also not evidence that Jesus is the saviour.
What evidence do you have that there is no alienation
A Panto dame requires a couple of huge false tits..............and right on cue you and Owlswing turn up.
We are debating what the fine detail in the Gospels is about.
So those are acts, miracles, preaching, and teaching. and not just miracles.
Ippy
Are you by any chance suggesting that Vlad and his posts are a joke?
A Panto dame requires a couple of huge false tits..............and right on cue you and Owlswing turn up.Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?
I meant what I said in that post, no more or any less, I see the crude as something similar to little children running away from somewhere after having written their first rude word put on public display.
As for his struggle with English, trying to impress by using big words, for him, mostly out of context, this lets him down so often and is inclined to do him more of a disservice rather than help him fight his corner.
He would be better using basic and more easily understood English than, as it looks to me, stretching out just that bit too far with his use of language as he does, has done so far and shows signs of continuing to do so.
Regards ippy
Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?
He has had this explained to him by others far more qualified than I.
However, as with his adherance to Christianity, any hint that he is in error, in anything, is rejected outright.
Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9"My companions saw the light"?
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?
Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?
Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?
"My companions saw the light"?So they all had a seizure at once?
My money goes on photosensitive temporal lobe epilepsy.
So they all had a seizure at once?
Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?
So they all had a seizure at once?Where's the evidence that all of them had a seizure?
He describes a meeting with Cephas (Peter) and James in Jerusalem. But he never attributes any of the things he preaches to either of them.Whatever the contradictions (Acts 9:19-30 seems to conflict with Galations 1-2), the revelation Paul speaks of in Galations 1:12 would probably refer to Jesus appearing to him, thus confirming what he must already have known during the time when he persecuted Christians - that Jesus was said to have died for our sins according to the scriptures, been buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). So this is evidence that the resurrection itself was not a legend added decades later to embellish the gospel stories.
Maybe it was a lightening flash, causing Paul to have a seizure?What about the noise which the other people with him heard but did not understand? (Assuming they saw the light and heard some kind of sound as reported in Acts 22)
What about the noise which the other people with him heard but did not understand? (Assuming they saw the light and heard some kind of sound as reported in Acts 22)What's a loud noise, often associated with lightning? Seven letters: T _ _ N D _ R.
Whatever the contradictions (Acts 9:19-30 seems to conflict with Galations 1-2), the revelation Paul speaks of in Galations 1:12 would probably refer to Jesus appearing to him, thus confirming what he must already have known during the time when he persecuted Christians - that Jesus was said to have died for our sins according to the scriptures, been buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). So this is evidence that the resurrection itself was not a legend added decades later to embellish the gospel stories.
What's a loud noise, often associated with lightning? Seven letters: T _ _ N D _ R.Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)
Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)
So, if this scripture stuff is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus you'll have taken meaningful steps to assess the risk of mistakes and lies - and these steps were?Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?
Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?
Thank you.
Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?
Thank you.
Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)
No - let's not 'let scripture interpret scripture'.
Let's take a more sceptical approach that brings other aspects into the interpretation - such as the risks of human artifice.
But in this instance the writer robably wished to put a supernatural spin, on a very natural event.
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?Why not?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).I see you've completely ignored Gordon's point. Why bother?
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day.
I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).
Did the event - Paul's (not Saul's as I mistyped earlier - sorry for that") flash of light and instantaneous conversion from Christian-hunter-killer to Christian actuallky happen.If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story. So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic. Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.
If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story. So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic. Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.
So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic.here needs to be edited to be more accurate. It should read
So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which some theological scholars believe is authentic.
That would include Mohammed then. When will you be converting?
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions
If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story.
So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic.
Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.
Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9You realise that Acts is untrustworthy, I hope. The only reliable account of Paul's conversion is the one made by Paul himself.
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?
Was this provably written or said by Saul?No.
Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?Paul never claimed to have met Jesus.
We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).The 9/11 hijackers believed they were accountable to God, and look where that got us.
Paul never claimed to have met Jesus.
The 9/11 hijackers believed they were accountable to God, and look where that got us.
Yes - people who write propaganda tend to do that sort of thing: 'spin' would be a modern term for this, which is why I keep asking if you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies.You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.
You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.
That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.
You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.
That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.
That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.Well we only have the word of the author of Acts that there were any eye witnesses. He may have invented them to add weight to the story.
Nope: people make mistakes and tell lies, so if you are going to claim those behind the NT were immune from known human artifice then you'll need to explain how you excluded that possibility that they didn't ever lie, didn't ever make mistakes or didn't ever exaggerate.
No. The first thing you have to establish is if these eye witnesses actually existed or not. If we assume that Paul's account is the more accurate (after all, he was there), the eye witnesses don't really exist.
True - but I'm talking mainly about those who wrote the NT bits claiming there were witness (or miracles etc) and the risk that these writers were exaggerating or lying.
Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?
What about the noise which the other people with him heard but did not understand? (Assuming they saw the light and heard some kind of sound as reported in Acts 22)
Don't you recognise a wind-up when you see one? ::)
Or in the correct saying... "Feeling a right tit"... which for many men has been the truth for them. ::) :o...or using the word as defined in this context
So how many of the board members who are male can say they have "felt a right tit?"
Back as you were.
Or in the correct saying... "Feeling a right tit"... which for many men has been the truth for them. ::) :o
So how many of the board members who are male can say they have "felt a right tit?"
Back as you were.
Not the point of this thread I know but it is very funny, I'm in need of a bit of a cheer up today!
(Yes I agree plenty of women have felt a right tit and even a left one, I have done both when checking.)
Well we only have the word of the author of Acts that there were any eye witnesses. He may have invented them to add weight to the story.
There isn't really much of a risk with respect to the Acts account of Paul's conversion. We have Paul's account and it is very much more low key than the account in Acts. There is no risk with respect to exaggeration or lying, because we know that the author of Acts is definitely exaggerating or lying. Either that or Paul is deliberately down playing the event, which seems unlikely given that it is Paul.The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed. For example, the first account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 could have been given to Luke by Ananias himself, judging from the inclusion of details such as 'Straight Street' (9:11). The second in ch.22 could have come from the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem. Luke seems to have been given details such as Paul being bound with two chains (v33) - the source probably was not Paul himself, which would account for variations from Paul's own account in Galatians.
seem to be genuine
could have been
could have come
seems to have been
probablyAnd on these gossamer wisps of nothingness are religions built.
The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed. For example, the first account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 could have been given to Luke by Ananias himself, judging from the inclusion of details such as 'Straight Street' (9:11). The second in ch.22 could have come from the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem. Luke seems to have been given details such as Paul being bound with two chains (v33) - the source probably was not Paul himself, which would account for variations from Paul's own account in Galatians.
...or using the word as defined in this context
BRITISH IMPOLITE a stupid person
Synonyms and related words
Someone who is unintelligent, stupid or silly:fool, buffoon, clown...
...then one can look like one, feel like one, be a complete one.......not necessarily confined to men.
So how many women on this board can fit one or more of the above? :P
Here's what the author wrote at the beginning of his first book to Theophilus. The missing words here point to reliable testimony:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were e_________s and s______s of the word."
"Therefore, since I myself have c_______y inv_______ed everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an _______ account for you, most excellent Theolhilus, so that you may know the _________ of the things you have been taught".
PS, we could contrast your statement, "the eye witnesses don't really exist."
The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed. For example, the first account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 could have been given to Luke by Ananias himself, judging from the inclusion of details such as 'Straight Street' (9:11).But when it doesn't cohere with the account of the person to whom it happened, we must treat it with scepticism.
The second in ch.22 could have come from the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem.Or it could have been pulled from the arse of the writer.
Luke seems to have been given details such as Paul being bound with two chains (v33) - the source probably was not Paul himself, which would account for variations from Paul's own account in Galatians.Spud, details can be made up. In fact, people who are lying tend to embellish their accounts with details because people like you naively think that adds authenticity.
But when it doesn't cohere with the account of the person to whom it happened, we must treat it with scepticism.If I was Gordon (in fact if I was me ... and I already am me) I would ask, what have you done to exclude to exclude these possibilities.
Or it could have been pulled from the arse of the writer.
Spud, details can be made up. In fact, people who are lying tend to embellish their accounts with details because people like you naively think that adds authenticity.
If I was Gordon (in fact if I was me ... and I already am me) I would ask, what have you done to exclude to exclude these possibilities.
But nobody ever answers the question so there's no point so I'll go and watch the Hairy Bikers.
Just to be clear, is this addressed to me or Spud?Spud, of course. Apologies. You don't strike me as the "Somebody wrote it down, so what they wrote down is true" type. Apologies for any confusion.
No.
It was a statement allegedly made by Paul and reported by whoever wrote Acts. However, we have a statement about the event made by Paul himself which does not cohere with this account.
Spud makers the assumption that whatever was written in the Bible is true. This is an unwarranted assumption.
Hi jeremy,That's not talking about the conversion though.
Have had a bit of time to look at this again today and have found a statement from Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 that coheres with a detail added by Luke in his account in Acts 9:24-25.
2 Corinthians 11:32
In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
The absence of Saul's journey to Arabia in Acts 9 could be because Luke used an independent source for information about Saul's conversion, who didn't know about the journey to Arabia; or simply because Luke has limited space and wants to emphasize the reaction of the Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem to Saul's preaching.
That's not talking about the conversion though.Sorry - I thought you were referring to not just the conversion event in Acts 9, but what happened after as well. He goes on to say in 2 Cor 12 that he wouldn't boast about himself, and that he could potentially become conceited about the revelations given him. Hence concerning his conversion experience in Gal 1:15 he just says "I was called".
Yeah, it's all could and perhaps isn't it.Paul also mentions that he persecuted Christians (1 Cor 15:9, Gal 1:9), which agrees with Acts.
Hope you enjoy the festive season, Spud; all good wishes to you and yours.And to you too, hope Father Christmas brought you something nice :)
Sorry - I thought you were referring to not just the conversion event in Acts 9, but what happened after as well. He goes on to say in 2 Cor 12 that he wouldn't boast about himself, and that he could potentially become conceited about the revelations given him. Hence concerning his conversion experience in Gal 1:15 he just says "I was called".
Well he would say that, wouldn't he?Yes- however, someone he had told about the experience wouldn't have the same problem and so could go into detail (ie Luke in his second book to Theophilus)
Yes- however, someone he had told about the experience wouldn't have the same problem and so could go into detail (ie Luke in his second book to Theophilus)
Yes- however, someone he had told about the experience wouldn't have the same problem and so could go into detail (ie Luke in his second book to Theophilus)
But just because Paul wrote it down doesn't mean it is true.ah but he used his Parker pen he got for Christmas
ah but he used his Parker pen he got for Christmas
The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed. For example, the first account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 could have been given to Luke by Ananias himself, judging from the inclusion of details such as 'Straight Street' (9:11). The second in ch.22 could have come from the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem. Luke seems to have been given details such as Paul being bound with two chains (v33) - the source probably was not Paul himself, which would account for variations from Paul's own account in Galatians.
'The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed'.
Well they would do to you Spud now see if you can find some irrefutable evidence to support the veracity of the said accounts?
You're in for a long job there Spud, if you could admit it to yourself.
Regards ippy
Ippy,
Do you believe that after a person dies, there is no afterlife at all? (I think this is called annihilationism). I'm guessing you will answer yes. Now Ippy if you have irrefutable evidence for this, we can all ignore the Bible and live happily ever after. The fact that the body decomposes points towards this, but is that irrefutable evidence?
If someone died and found himself in some kind of conscious state, he might be able to send a message back to us. But then he might not be able to. So we cannot know - although some people would claim to have contacted someone's ghost after their death.
What I'm getting at is, there doesn't seem to be irrefutable evidence for either position, and so whichever we decide to believe (afterlife or no afterlife) will be a position of faith.
So to restate my main question: is the decomposition of the brain proof that there is no afterlife? If not then what is wrong with believing some reports in the Bible of life after death - reports that have passed the tests for genuine authenticity?
Your claim, your burden of proof. The NPF rides again!
There might not be irrefutable evidence for an afterlife, but there is not irrefutable evidence that there is no afterlife either. The only way we could know the latter is by actually dying, and then we would not be able to discuss it here!
There might not be irrefutable evidence for an afterlife, but there is not irrefutable evidence that there is no afterlife either. The only way we could know the latter is by actually dying, and then we would not be able to discuss it here!
I'm not claiming anything, in fact I admitted that there isn't irrefutable evidence forYour position is your claim. Which makes your above statement gibberish.my positionthe veracity of the said accounts. Thus me saying "the reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed" is acceptable.
Again your claim your burden of proof and no one has asked for your evidence to be irrefutable.
Your position is your claim. Which makes your above statement gibberish.Which is why I edited it.
Have you read ippys original question, Mr administrator?Which is why it names no sense, you cannot claim something and it not be a position.
Which is why I edited it.
I agree. As there is no irrefutable proof either way, it would be more than unjust if there are dire consequences for not believing in a god or afterlife.I'd argue as Paul does in Romans 1 that there is proof for God, hence the saying, "he is a God-fearing man". Proof of an afterlife would have to be given us.
I'd argue as Paul does in Romans 1 that there is proof for God, hence the saying, "he is a God-fearing man". Proof of an afterlife would have to be given us.
Your claim, your burden of proof. The NPF rides again!
What proof?Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.
That isn't proof.Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.
Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.
That's the proof
For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/moon-orbit.php
Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.
Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.
Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.
That's the proof.
For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/moon-orbit.php
Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.
Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.
Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.It assumes the existence go God? I detect begging the question.
Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.I look forward to seeing your paper that proves this. It's sure to get you the Nobel Prize. The Big Bang, by the way was a state of extremely low entropy. It's perfectly possible for the Universe to have come from the Big Bang with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know, but then again, your god is a massive violation of 2LTD and your glossing over that problem is somewhat dishonest.
For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.No it hasn't. Current computer models suggest the collision theory is perfectly plausible.
I look forward to seeing your paper that proves this. It's sure to get you the Nobel Prize. The Big Bang, by the way was a state of extremely low entropy. It's perfectly possible for the Universe to have come from the Big Bang with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know, but then again, your god is a massive violation of 2LTD and your glossing over that problem is somewhat dishonest.If the big bang was anything like the one that woke me up last night, then it was a state of high entropy. Otherwise it needs a different name.
Try the "orbit level" launch, with a launch angle of 0 and force of 7. This produces a near circular orbit.
The simulation demonstrates that you can only get the moon into a circular orbit if it is launched from the orbit level. I suppose this could be done if you had two bodies colliding at the level of the orbit, one disappearing into space and the other going into the circular orbit.
If the big bang was anything like the one that woke me up last night, then it was a state of high entropy. Otherwise it needs a different name.
Other examples include the evolution fallacy (observed microevolution implies macroevolution). Genetic mutation always leads to a decrease in overall viability even though it allows adaptation to a specific environment.
Re the moon, try a launch angle from space of -14 and a force of 4. This was the closest I could get to the near circular orbit of our moon, but it gives an elliptical orbit with it being either really close to or far from the earth. I will try again with the collision option.
Maybe it demonstrates what the authors want it to demonstrate. Had you thought if that?
The simulation demonstrates that you can only get the moon into a circular orbit if it is launched from the orbit level.
If the big bang was anything like the one that woke me up last night, then it was a state of high entropy. Otherwise it needs a different name.Incorrect. The bang you heard was caused by the rapid expansion of burning gases. It's a manifestation of the transition of something from a low entropy to a high entropy state.
The Iliad is fiction.I am going back to this post because we diverted to the witnesses to Saul's experience on the road to Damascus and then somehow onto celestial mechanics. We had a very good talk at church before Christmas, on Luke 1, the story of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
Neither could the supernatural events described in the Gospels.
Which eye witnesses were still alive when each of the gospels were written. The time period in question is ~70CE to ~90CE. Give evidence for your claims.
Where is your evidence that any of these people were still alive when the gospels were written.
5,000 people witnessed the death and resurrection of Gerald my pet hamster. You need to start worshipping him now.
I am going back to this post because we diverted to the witnesses to Saul's experience on the road to Damascus and then somehow onto celestial mechanics. We had a very good talk at church before Christmas, on Luke 1, the story of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
As I said, the Iliad was probably written centuries after the events it was based on. Luke, however introduces us to his first eyewitness in 1:5, "In the time of Herod king of Judah there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wide Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron." Note here the historical context (Herod, king of Judah) and the family tree of both John's parents. Luke is telling Theophilus exactly who the eyewitness is. That this is a real eyewitness is evident because he avoids boasting about meeting an angel, confessing that he didn't believe his message, which if someone had made a false claim, would be unlikely.
Now the person giving the sermon called attention to verse 3 where Luke says that he had investigated everything from the beginning. Thus, to answer to your question, eyewitnesses handed down the things that had been fulfilled among them, and Luke has investigated everything so that Theophilus could be sure of what he had been taught.
We had a very good talk at church before Christmas, on Luke 1, the story of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
Luke, however introduces us to his first eyewitness in 1:5, "In the time of Herod king of Judah there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wide Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron." Note here the historical context (Herod, king of Judah) and the family tree of both John's parents. Luke is telling Theophilus exactly who the eyewitness is.
That this is a real eyewitness is evident because he avoids boasting about meeting an angel, confessing that he didn't believe his message, which if someone had made a false claim, would be unlikely.
Now the person giving the sermon called attention to verse 3 where Luke says that he had investigated everything from the beginning. Thus, to answer to your question, eyewitnesses handed down the things that had been fulfilled among them, and Luke has investigated everything so that Theophilus could be sure of what he had been taught.
I am going back to this post because we diverted to the witnesses to Saul's experience on the road to Damascus and then somehow onto celestial mechanics. We had a very good talk at church before Christmas, on Luke 1, the story of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
As I said, the Iliad was probably written centuries after the events it was based on. Luke, however introduces us to his first eyewitness in 1:5, "In the time of Herod king of Judah there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wide Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron." Note here the historical context (Herod, king of Judah) and the family tree of both John's parents. Luke is telling Theophilus exactly who the eyewitness is. That this is a real eyewitness is evident because he avoids boasting about meeting an angel, confessing that he didn't believe his message, which if someone had made a false claim, would be unlikely.
Now the person giving the sermon called attention to verse 3 where Luke says that he had investigated everything from the beginning. Thus, to answer to your question, eyewitnesses handed down the things that had been fulfilled among them, and Luke has investigated everything so that Theophilus could be sure of what he had been taught.
Good point Littleroses, a charming work of fiction which became a legend which some believed to be true. I think I'd have liked to believe in that legend, the imagery is so beautiful.
(You'd be surprised how many people believe in angels though, LR, not the 'heavenly host' as described in the Bible or Qu'ran but other types of supernatural beings who can be called upon in times of need - money to be made out of contacting angels on someone else's behalf and relaying messages. Reminds me of spiritualism, duping the gullible. Shudder.)
Amazing, LR. Inexplicable things do happen to us at times, often when we need comfort the most. I've not had an experience like your fishing one, nothing so tangible.
I just don't know how I managed it, but yesterday I spoilt my ravishing beauty. ;D I now have a large deep scratch all down the right side of my face. You will never guess how I did that! I was putting my husband's daily tablet collection together for the coming week, when my face somehow connected with the very sharp metal case of his Sodium Valporate tablets. I should sue myself for not concentrating properly! ;D
This is always happening with Sodium Valporate tablets, did you read the paperwork that comes with the tablets?
Regards ippy
I didn't see anything about scratching yourself on the packaging! ::)
Oh dear this thread has got way off topic. As the naughty stair is hard on the botty please MODS may I have a soft cushion to ease the pain when I am made to sit on it? ;D
Saturday was a particularly unlucky day for me, went to check on Samson my nephew's hamster and found he had escaped. Later on Sunday night heard noises coming from the airing cupboard where he had decided to climb through a hole and vanish under the floorboards. I actually had a word with God about this and God decided to send him back. He came up for food later on and I shone a torch at him before catching him.
Saturday was a particularly unlucky day for me, went to check on Samson my nephew's hamster and found he had escaped. Later on Sunday night heard noises coming from the airing cupboard where he had decided to climb through a hole and vanish under the floorboards. I actually had a word with God about this and God decided to send him back. He came up for food later on and I shone a torch at him before catching him.
Saturday was a particularly unlucky day for me, went to check on Samson my nephew's hamster and found he had escaped. Later on Sunday night heard noises coming from the airing cupboard where he had decided to climb through a hole and vanish under the floorboards. I actually had a word with God about this and God decided to send him back. He came up for food later on and I shone a torch at him before catching him.
If you aren't having a 'larf', which I suspect you are not, then what does that say about your god?
Wind up or not, it's a charming story with a happy ending. I share your joy. Had I been looking after someone else's hamster and it escaped, I'd have had kittens! The kittens no doubt would have found him but the ending been less happy.
Well I think God did speak to Samson, because he is a very precious rodent.
It says to me that God has a special hamster which I have the privilege of looking after.
Lighten up! I quite like Spud being in this mood.Every time this happens I am in hysterics. Better stay on topic though!
Lighten up! I quite like Spud being in this mood.Seems like the same mood that he uses to say homosexuals aren"t due same sex marriage.
If you've got someone telling you about his encounter with an angel on the road, wouldn't you feel a bit like saying yes It was very similar for me when I bumped into Elvis earlier on the other week.I've never met an angel. But they are not in the same role now as they were before Christ. 'Angel' means 'messenger'. Back then, they were God's messengers to mankind about how salvation works; now that salvation is completed, that role is filled by Christ through pastors (as messengers to the church) and Christians (as messengers to those not in the church). So we wouldn't actually expect to meet a lot of angels at this stage in history.
Regards ippy
Spud I read back and see that his name is Samson.Hm, it doesn't roll off the tongue too easily. 'Hammy' is good, I think. 'Spud' is the name of our old cat, who was a good pal.
Excellent name for a tough little chap who likes an adventure.
.... Note here the historical context (Herod, king of Judah) and the family tree of both John's parents. Luke is telling Theophilus exactly who the eyewitness is. That this is a real eyewitness is evident because he avoids boasting about meeting an angel, confessing that he didn't believe his message, which if someone had made a false claim, would be unlikely.
Except that, in regards to the details he records surrounding the birth of Christ, Luke notoriously gets things ridiculously wrong. All those details about a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, the dates of Herod etc - everything out of sync. All cobbled together via the method of sticking a few well-known names in a hat, juggling them around, picking out a few at random, and then weaving a story around them involving angels and miraculous births.Dicky, do you think the census could have taken longer than one year, the year in which it is thought to have happened (6 AD)? If so, perhaps it ended at that time but Joseph could have made the journey to register 6 years earlier?
What events is it based on? The Iliad is fiction. Some of it takes place in the environs of a real city but then so does some of Harry Potter.
As I said, the Iliad was probably written centuries after the events it was based on.
Luke, however introduces us to his first eyewitness in 1:5, "In the time of Herod king of Judah there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wide Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron." Note here the historical context (Herod, king of Judah) and the family tree of both John's parents.
Luke is telling Theophilus exactly who the eyewitness is. That this is a real eyewitness is evident because he avoids boasting about meeting an angel, confessing that he didn't believe his message, which if someone had made a false claim, would be unlikely.
Now the person giving the sermon called attention to verse 3 where Luke says that he had investigated everything from the beginning. Thus, to answer to your question, eyewitnesses handed down the things that had been fulfilled among them, and Luke has investigated everything so that Theophilus could be sure of what he had been taught.
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for youHere Luke is admitting that he is using third hand accounts.
Dicky, do you think the census could have taken longer than one year, the year in which it is thought to have happened (6 AD)? If so, perhaps it ended at that time but Joseph could have made the journey to register 6 years earlier?It says that the census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Judea. That firmly dates it to 6CE or later. More to the point, the decree allegedly emanates from Augustus and is a census of the whole World (Roman empire presumably). There's no evidence that this census ever took place.
Thanks Jeremy, it's an interesting puzzle because Joseph clearly did go to Bethlehem to register, if Luke is right.
Thanks Jeremy, it's an interesting puzzle because Joseph clearly did go to Bethlehem to register, if Luke is right. Samson sends his regards to Gerald and says that he went exploring in the garden yesterday.
So the story goes, Spud: have you considered that it might not be true?Have you considered anything other?
Have you considered anything other?
As far as I can see it is a claim that involves the risks of mistakes or lies so I'm wondering on what basis it could be thought to be true unless the risks of mistakes or lies were meaningfully addressed by anyone taking the claim seriously, such as by raising it as a topic of discussion.I'm sorry Gordon but this does nothing to deflect the suspicion that you are arguing from disbelief IMHO.
I'm sorry Gordon but this does nothing to deflect the suspicion that you are arguing from disbelief IMHO.
Your final point is plain wrong since there is nothing to stop the person who thinks these things haven't happened from wanting to discuss whether they could happen.
I'm sorry Gordon but this does nothing to deflect the suspicion that you are arguing from disbelief IMHO.
Your final point is plain wrong since there is nothing to stop the person who thinks these things haven't happened from wanting to discuss whether they could happen.
I'm not arguing from disbelief: I'm simply asking how the risks of mistakes or lies have been addressed.Can we have a response to the many addressings that have been issued or at least reasons why you do not accept them as such then?
The point though surely, since it seems to me that Spud accepts this story as being factually true, is whether in doing so he has assessed the risks of human error or human artifice. As far as I can see he hasn't.He takes what is written, sees epistoliary backup, considers the historical context experiences Christianity as a societal phenomenon, considers the position philosophically, and has an encounter with Christ....not necessarily in that order.
He takes what is written, sees epistoliary backup, considers the historical context experiences Christianity as a societal phenomenon, considers the position philosophically, and has an encounter with Christ....not necessarily in that order.
If you dismiss these a priori then he has the march on you having actually considered these points.
And this helps with the facts showing him to be wrong in what way? Seems your method allows you to ignore the details of what is actually claimed. So since it doesn't work you will have to start again.Wrong about what?
Wrong about what?That there was a Roman census that required people to go to a non Roman area to register 6 years before the governor claimed.
Seems your method allows you to ignore the details of what is actually claimed.Things presented by Christian's here has had more thought applied to it than the facile assumption of ''default position'' and that ''at least science has a method'' some non believers hurl shamanically whenever challenged or when a picked fight is desired..........IMHO.
I don't believe something unless there is good reason to do so. That isn't disbelief.
That there was a Roman census that required people to go to a non Roman area to register 6 years before the governor claimed.Is this the only piece of fine detail?
was in power and 4 years after the king claimed was dead but apparently all of that was consistent. Read the thread. And remember the title of the thread.
Is this the only piece of fine detail?Has anyone suggested that it us? Now given that you suggested what 'methid' Spud was using, and since it has lead to him ignoring the fact that in this case it is shockingly wrong, can you perhaps show a few examples where you think it works?
He takes what is written, sees epistoliary backup, considers the historical context experiences Christianity as a societal phenomenon, considers the position philosophically, and has an encounter with Christ....not necessarily in that order.
If you dismiss these a priori then he has the march on you having actually considered these points.
Things presented by Christian's here has had more thought applied to it than the facile assumption of ''default position'' and that ''at least science has a method'' some non believers hurl shamanically whenever challenged or when a picked fight is desired..........IMHO.
So what thought have you applied that means you should believe stuff without good evidence?First what do you mean by 'good' and secondly 'evidence for what'?
First what do you mean by 'good' and secondly 'evidence for what'?Who said I was taken a mythicist position? You need to stop using straw. Why are you avoiding the positive claim from Spud? Stating 'received reportage' is begging the question. As is 'theological issues', you haven't established any such thing is meaningful and are again begging the question.
I cannot see 'good' reason for Jesus was mythic based on the obvious god avoidanced based conspiracy theory alternatives to explain the epistles and the community they point to. The Gospels cover the philosophical and theological issues with some received reportage.
At present your side in the case seems merely able to come to life or responsive to the Gospels when you think an error has been detected. In other words we can reject it all except this dating error. That's blatant posturing.
Can you expand on this since you have been chucking the word methodology around shamanically for a good couple of years now.
To have evidence you need a methodology,
You have not defined 'good' in the context of good evidence.
To have evidence you need a methodology,
Can you expand on this since you have been chucking the word methodology around shamanically for a good couple of years now.And expanded on it before - and been doing it for way longer than that and you have continually evaded it as you have just done again? You have even and repeatedly used the term naturalistic methodology and said you accepted it - so were you lying when you said that or were you just saying something you didn't understand?
You have not defined 'good' in the context of good evidence.One that indicates a probability that using the methodology that I am using - the naturalistic one, the one that is used in the study of history shows good reason to believe. To illustrate - there is good evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar (multiple sources, not an unusual claim that there was a person with such authority, would be difficult to create the sources and archeological back up)but there us not much evidence for him crossing the Rubicon and saying that the die was cast (those who could witness even very few, specific sources, no back up evidence even down to not having any clear idea what the Rubicon was), and using the methodology nothing can be evidence that he was descended from the goddess Venus {because it's a non naturalistic claim using a naturalistic methodology)
And expanded on it before - and been doing it for way longer than that and you have continually evaded it as you have just done again? You have even and repeatedly used the term naturalistic methodology and said you accepted it - so were you lying when you said that or were you just saying something you didn't understand?I use the word methodology to distinguish between a systematic approach where each step addresses the previous from philosophy.
If you want to make a claim assuming something other than everything is naturalistic, then you need a methodology that would show how you establish that claim Your recent mess of a thread an individual declared dead then being found not to be dead, illustrates that you seem unable to even frame your claims coherently since if such 'resurrections' are indeed just natural then the resurrection of JC is just the same as me dropping a pen and it falling to the ground.
I use the word methodology to distinguish between a systematic approach where each step addresses the previous from philosophy.No - I haven't said science and my posts go into detail on that - whenever you stop lying (yet again) get back to me - this is yet another time when I attempt dialogue with you but you decide to lie about it. I should know better given reasoning and logic but you always disappoint.
I don't believe you have addressed the issue of methodology so I will for you.
The only satisfactory methodology anyone around here has shown to be completely coherent, effective and according to you yielding of evidence is science.
To then as you seem to to then dismiss non science......religion, reason, logic, philosophy renders you an empiricist of Vienna group proportions and we know how risible that little excursion was.
As far as the resurrection thread is concerned I said I got exactly what I wanted out of it and at the end of the day that's what counts.
I thought I said else where that I am going off words like natural and supernatural particularly (yes you've guessed it) ''How shamanically etc,etc,etc.
One that indicates a probability that using the methodology that I am using - the naturalistic one, the one that is used in the study of history shows good reason to believe. To illustrate - there is good evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar (multiple sources, not an unusual claim that there was a person with such authority, would be difficult to create the sources and archeological back up)but there us not much evidence for him crossing the Rubicon and saying that the die was cast (those who could witness even very few, specific sources, no back up evidence even down to not having any clear idea what the Rubicon was), and using the methodology nothing can be evidence that he was descended from the goddess Venus {because it's a non naturalistic claim using a naturalistic methodology)Oh no the N word again.
Well that's a claim that certainly needs justification.
ETA - the claims of your religion are illogical and indicate a lack of reasoning and are philosophically incoherent -
Well that's a claim that certainly needs justification.
And again that has been covered multiple times such as on your 'resurrection' thread so if you got what you wanted out of that thread you must have been hoping for that to be shown.I put loads of points there that went unchallenged in favour of warmed over helpings of ''These things never happen'' and flagrant disregard of Popperian thought and the problem of induction. Sheer fundementalist Meldrewism i'm afraid.
I put loads of points there that went unchallenged in favour of warmed over helpings of ''These things never happen'' and flagrant disregard of Popperian thought and the problem of induction. Sheer fundementalist Meldrewism i'm afraid.You raised a number of barely coherent points that undermined the importance of what you argue for the resurrection in order to pass some time
You raised a number of barely coherent points that undermined the importance of what you argue for the resurrection in order to pass some timeWrong I pointed out that three doctors pronounced a man dead presumably because of evidence, that there was no monitoring of the man in his presumed dead condition and he was later seen alive. In different ways.
Wrong I pointed out that three doctors pronounced a man dead presumably because of evidence, that there was no monitoring of the man in his presumed dead condition and he was later seen alive. In different ways.
The counterargument was that they had to be wrong and that counter argument was made without any evidence of the persons condition.
The response from my opposition was that they erroneously accused me of making incorrect or incoherent statements.
You responded to me according to your conditioning and it was highly entertaining.
If you want to have a discussion of why the above is wrong, I suggest you go back to the thread and address the actual points made.No I don't think so. There is no actual evidence for the state of this guy after his diagnosis confirmed by three doctors so we have to extend our assumptionsphere a little further. Argue from disbelief, ignoring popper and the problem of induction in other words.
No I don't think so. There is no actual evidence for the state of this guy after his diagnosis confirmed by three doctors so we have to extend our assumptionsphere a little further. Argue from disbelief, ignoring popper and the problem of induction in other words.Again if you want to deal with the actual arguments as opposed to your misrepresentations, happy to do it there.
That there was a Roman census that required people to go to a non Roman area to register 6 years before the governor claimed.Perfect summary.
was in power and 4 years after the king claimed was dead but apparently all of that was consistent. Read the thread. And remember the title of the thread.
What events is it based on? The Iliad is fiction. Some of it takes place in the environs of a real city but then so does some of Harry Potter.Fluffing the historicity doesn't mean it is fictional.
Anybody can place fictional events in a historical context. Note that Luke later fluffs his historicity when he invents a fictional census.
Quote from: NRSV
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you
Here Luke is admitting that he is using third hand accounts.
Even if they are third hand, and whether or not the historical details about the census are correct, I think Luke is trying to say primarily that the events actually happened: here are the names of the people who witnessed them, they were real people and it happened at a particular time in history.
So Theophilus would not have been able to cross-examine the eyewitnesses, but Luke wants him to be able to trace them so that he can be more certain about the facts than he otherwise would have been.
Again if you want to deal with the actual arguments as opposed to your misrepresentations, happy to do it there.Actual arguments? I hope you are not including any reaction which suggested I was automatically suggesting a supernatural resurrection?
Actual arguments? I hope you are not including any reaction which suggested I was automatically suggesting a supernatural resurrection?
What argument could there have been to a suggestion that three doctors diagnosed him as dead, he was unmonitored subsequently and found to be alive? To suggest there is an argument against that or even that this is unusual seems to be fight picking flannel.
Perhaps we should revert to the other thread: btw have you checked your 'three doctors diagnosed' recently?No as I said I've made all my observations regarding responses. They aren't my doctors and the world has moved on. I never stated my personal beliefs on the issue but I believe somehow a wrong diagnosis was probably made. Unless there is actual proof of error though that is as far as we can go.
Thanks Jeremy, it's an interesting puzzle because Joseph clearly did go to Bethlehem to register, if Luke is right.Which makes no sense and is not supported by other sources. Therefore Luke is wrong.
He takes what is written, sees epistoliary backup, considers the historical context experiences Christianity as a societal phenomenon, considers the position philosophically, and has an encounter with Christ....not necessarily in that order.
Which makes no sense and is not supported by other sources. Therefore Luke is wrong.I'm wondering what those around here who suggest that the bible has suffered all kinds of intervening interpolations and transcription errors would say on the matter.
I'm wondering what those around here who suggest that the bible has suffered all kinds of intervening interpolations and transcription errors would say on the matter.
''The original account has suffered a transcription error or deletion'' perhaps?
'The original account may have been wrong or fabricated', perhaps?What, all of it?
What, all of it?
It would be for those who feel any account is relevant to assess the risks of mistakes or lies in the details of whatever is claimed.First of all we know that a transcription error of one or two words can change the sense of something.
This is especially the case for anecdotal accounts where the details are being portrayed as being highly significant in some way, and obviously the presence of any obvious factual errors would weaken confidence in the account.
In relation to what has been mentioned in this thread, involving the census story, it would seem that this does contain factual errors so it would be essential for those promoting the story to deal directly with these factual errors.
Which sounds like a treatise of special pleading: put simply, you can't know the extent to which mistakes or lies appear in the NT, especially given the uncertain provenance of some of it, the nature of some of the claims it contains and the potential bias of the authors, but prefer to proceed on an 'it's true for me' basis - which is fine for the purposes of your personal belief.It's special pleading on your part if you are suggesting that a dating error invalidates everything in the NT.
It isn't fine though for anyone trying to portray the NT content as being historical fact, and where they come unstuck is when it comes to assessing the risks of mistakes and lies - and it seems to me they are reluctant to even acknowledge these risks and much prefer to divert onto this 'Christian message', as you just did.
It's special pleading on your part if you are suggesting that a dating error invalidates everything in the NT.
In terms of not knowing the extent of the mistakes in the bible that is true for the whole of ancient historical literature for that period unless of course you specially plead.
The new testament reads in many places like slices of life.
You seem to be going in the opposite direction though that none of the NT is history. Well, that is special pleading to for reasons I've just outlined. That is why the NT as fiction is a fringe belief.
What you have to show therefore is that the community described in the earliest parts new testament did not exist since the Gospel is already implicit and explicit in there.
If you are not satisfied with the new testament then there must be another history which is more satisfactory and true.
What then is this history and when was it written? I believe you are mistaking history for an entity. The world can be without an entity but not a history i'm afraid.
Given all of that. The statement that everything portrayed as historical in the new testament is false is i'm afraid the Fred and Ginger of bias and your low attempt to imbue such a totality of your own tendency onto the biblical writers is laughable.
I mention the Christian message because that is the call to practice and partake of precisely the same process as described historically in the New testament.
I didn't say that.You say you didn't say these things so what are you saying?
I agree with you, since the risks of human error and human artifice apply to all anecdotal accounts and presentations of events and people: hence the need to consider these risks.
It may well do, as do many other documents and even acknowledged fiction. For instance 'To Kill a Mockingbird' reads like a 'slice of life'.
I didn't say that, and I'm not special pleading: there may well be elements in the NT that are trivially true and there may well be clear errors, as noted in this thread, but the main claims involving Jesus (such as him being dead and then not) need to be assessed so as to exclude the risks - and that is what you are avoiding like the plague.
No I don't - I'm simply asking how the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT have been assessed, so stop evading.
There is certainly a history: but we are dealing with what the NT presents as being history.
No idea: remember I'm just asking you how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the version of history you've signed up to.
Indeed it would be laughable: but then I haven't said that, but I can spot a straw man when I see one.
Super: but that says nothing other than your personal commitment to the NT and ignores the risk that what you have committed to may involve mistakes and lies - this should worry you greatly.
You say you didn't say these things so what are you saying?
You say of course there is a history then what is it?
Time to front up Gordon.
I'm asking you, for the umpteenth time, how you have assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT content.But you've already speculated Gordon.......You've speculated that it might not be true.
That there is a history of those times is self-evident, but I'm not inclined to speculate on the details or on alternative scenarios for the fairly obvious reason that there are no sources that would allow me to do so with any confidence.
Is that clear enough?
But you've already speculated Gordon.......You've speculated that it might not be true.
However there isn't then the luxury of leaving it like that.
A There has been no apparent examination of the NT by yourself and
B You have a duty to explore and similarly test the alternatives because history cannot have any holes.
Don't be silly: I think the risk of mistakes and lies is ubiquitous when it comes to people, and that those promoting the content of anything whatsoever as historical fact that involves the pronouncements of people, and especially when remarkable claims are involved, really do need to assess these risks carefully.So long as you are applying this to all history Gordon then you avoid special pleading.
If they haven't, or they can't given the lack of alternative reliable sources, if there are likely inconsistencies in the details of what is being claimed or if they are clearly resistant to doing so and seem inclined to accept the details at face-value - then I can quite reasonably conclude that the risks of mistakes or lies is such that whatever it is they are promoting can't be considered as a serious proposition if it is, effectively, indistinguishable from fiction.
So long as you are applying this to all history Gordon then you avoid special pleading.
The extraordinary claims demand Schlick is I'm afraid a form of special pleading drawn from argument from disbelief.
In other words we are special pleading when only considering the usual. You see logically if you take this line you end up believing anything that fits the usual. You end up with several equally usual versions.
The New Testament is out there Gordon. Any dispute over it is a suggestion of an alternative history.
To insist on people stating why they accept the biblical version while claiming immunity for having to justify their preferred alternative is by turns humbug and special pleading. It is the Default delusion I'm afraid.
Which I do, and to current as well as historical stuff.I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament.
No it isn't, unless you are prepared to accept highly unusual claims on the assurances of people you approve of.
You're being silly again: scepticism in all things is quite reasonable.
Nope - it is the observation that it may contain mistakes or lies, and that its enthusiastic supporters seem reluctant to address these risks.
Which isn't my position, as you well know so why misrepresent what I've regularly explained, and I'm not offering an 'alternative' since, as I've said, I have as much evidence for an 'alternative' story for these characters (assuming for the sake of argument they existed) as you do for the NT narrative - which is none that would stand scrutiny.
You'd do better to explain how you've assessed the risks of mistake or lies in the NT instead of evading this point - or acknowledging that there is no basis to assess these risks so that accepting the NT details is a matter of personal belief and not historical fact.
I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament.
I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament.
The New Testament is out there Gordon.And tells several inconsistent stories, not just one smooth narrative.
Any dispute over it is a suggestion of an alternative history.
as far as I can see, you accept the New Testament as being accurate history.
I'm assuming from your persistent evasion that you can't.
What on earth are you blabbering about: I'm not presenting any 'evidence' and I'm simply asking you about how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the New Testament since, as far as I can see, you accept the New Testament as being accurate history.Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament. However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction. None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.
I'm assuming from your persistent evasion that you can't.
And tells several inconsistent stories, not just one smooth narrative.I am familiar with a range of writers of Christianity including Schweitzer through the Blackwell collections edited by McGrath......which include the criticism of the higher critics.
The use of the singular here is inappropriate, as suggested above. You don't seem very familiar with the criticism the NT has been subjected to over the last 200 years or so (continual reference to C.S. Lewis just shows the paucity of your critical awareness btw).
Judging from your comments over the years, it doesn't look as though you've even read Schweitzer, let alone one of the first major figures of the Higher Criticism, David Friedrich Strauss.
If you'd prefer some more up to date research, try Professor Barry Wilson, who may at least persuade you to see the inconsistencies between Paul's writings and the account in the Book of Acts.
I'm wondering what those around here who suggest that the bible has suffered all kinds of intervening interpolations and transcription errors would say on the matter.Assuming it has how does that help Spud's case? The version he is working from is still inaccurate no matter how it became that way.
''The original account has suffered a transcription error or deletion'' perhaps?
Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament. However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction. None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.
As far as I can tell, Vlad doesn't claim to be a fundamentalist, believing every jot and tittle as divine truth. Trouble is, there can be no doubt that he believes the 'big' claims (resurrection, etc.). What his criteria are for distinguishing between the historicity of Jesus supposedly saying "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire" or talk about forgiveness, peace and love - or indeed the historicity of a literal, bodily resurrection - I expect we may never get a straightforward answer.How do you propose to extract the 'big' claims from the rest then since proposing to in the first place represents a prior bias in approach. On the other hand it is an alternative history which nobody else around here seems to have the guts for.
Assuming it has how does that help Spud's case? The version he is working from is still inaccurate no matter how it became that way.As you know Jeremy too many mutations and you have something which is unviable to the point where nobody could say, as Christian's do, ''this story is the fulfilment of human existence.''
How do you propose to extract the 'big' claims from the rest then since proposing to in the first place represents a prior bias in approach. On the other hand it is an alternative history which nobody else around here seems to have the guts for.
What you or we need to do, as an academic exercise of dubious value, is to excise the 'big' claims and see whether the remaining history hangs together.
This 'alternative history' is just another of your evasion tactics: expressing reasonable doubt about the details of one account does not require the advancement of an alternative account.Expressing doubt reasonable or otherwise is a de facto advancement of an alternative account via suggestion or innuendo. I wish you would own that.
Expressing doubt reasonable or otherwise is a de facto advancement of an alternative account via suggestion or innuendo. I wish you would own that.
Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament. However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction. None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.
No it isn't: the burden of proof is yours no matter how much you wriggle.No, history is not an entity. Whereas you can propose a world without leprechauns FSM or pink unicorns, you cannot have a world with no history. So if you doubt history was this then you are unavoidably suggesting a different history. As I said earlier, you have got a case of 'default delusion'. That is you think you have no burden of proof.
Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament. However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction. None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.
No, history is not an entity. Whereas you can propose a world without leprechauns FSM or pink unicorns, you cannot have a world with no history. So if you doubt history was this then you are unavoidably suggesting a different history. As I said earlier, you have got a case of 'default delusion'. That is you think you have no burden of proof.
Christians have their evidence, the bible and archeology. You can accept that or have a reason not to. Since this is history, those reasons will be historical.
What do you mean? Bits of it are absolutely certainly fiction beyond doubt.Which parts of the NT to you think are fiction?
Could you give some examples of these conversions please AlanI have read of several, but can't recall them all. The one I do recall is Frank Morrison, author of "Who Moved The Stone?"
I have read of several, but can't recall them all. The one I do recall is Frank Morrison, author of "Who Moved The Stone?"
Thanks. Not read it but will see if I can get hold of it.
Hi Maeght.You could let him make his own mind up.
I’m retired from this mb, but just by way of a public service you might not want to bother with that. I picked it up and put it down again several times way back when for
some reason my school had a battered copy.
First, it doesn’t set out as AB claims “to prove that the NT is a work of fiction” at all. Rather Morrison claimed that his intention was merely to examine the evidence.
Second, it’s one long exercise in circular reasoning (essentially, “the Bible it true; it’s in the Bible, therefore it’s true”) culminating in “so an angel must’ve done it”.
Third, it’s incredibly turgidly written.
Public service over.
Which parts of the NT to you think are fiction?Well the part I have been discussing with Spud would be a place to start. Luke's census is certainly fiction for reasons already discussed.
(apart from the obvious parables of course)
Thanks. Not read it but will see if I can get hold of it.I read it many years ago and I found it very convincing at the time. However, his arguments as I recall, seemed to be based on the idea that it was impossible for authors in the first century to create realistic fiction.
Third, it’s incredibly turgidly written.
And Morison was a declared sceptic before he set out to examine the evidence. It was not what he expected to find.
I disagree. I found it very well written. You are right about the circularity stuff though.
Hi Maeght.
I’m retired from this mb, but just by way of a public service you might not want to bother with that. I picked it up and put it down again several times way back when for
some reason my school had a battered copy.
First, it doesn’t set out as AB claims “to prove that the NT is a work of fiction” at all. Rather Morrison claimed that his intention was merely to examine the evidence.
Second, it’s one long exercise in circular reasoning (essentially, “the Bible it true; it’s in the Bible, therefore it’s true”) culminating in “so an angel must’ve done it”.
Third, it’s incredibly turgidly written.
Public service over.
You could let him make his own mind up.
And Morison was a declared sceptic before he set out to examine the evidence. It was not what he expected to find.
Of course the evidence comes mainly from the scriptures, but the analysis is based upon what you would expect to find from deliberate fabrication compared to truthful witness accounts.
Hi Maeght.Screw tape returns.
I’m retired from this mb, but just by way of a public service you might not want to bother with that. I picked it up and put it down again several times way back when for
some reason my school had a battered copy.
First, it doesn’t set out as AB claims “to prove that the NT is a work of fiction” at all. Rather Morrison claimed that his intention was merely to examine the evidence.
Second, it’s one long exercise in circular reasoning (essentially, “the Bible it true; it’s in the Bible, therefore it’s true”) culminating in “so an angel must’ve done it”.
Third, it’s incredibly turgidly written.
Public service over.
AB,You are still as stuck with having suggested an alternative historical narrative which needs justification as Gordon is.
That’s a falsehood commonly used by Christian apologists. In fact Morrison (whose real name by the way somewhat pleasingly was Albert Ross) was a believer in the Christian Jesus all along, and he just set out to examine the reported events leading up to and after the crucifixion.
In Chapter 1 for example he describes his feelings during his time of supposed scepticism: "For the person of Jesus Christ Himself, however, I had a deep and even reverent regard. He seemed to me an almost legendary figure of purity and noble manhood. A coarse word with regard to Him, or the taking of His name lightly, stung me to the quick".
Whence then the objectivity of the "sceptic"?
Morison actually takes the Gospels at face value throughout the book. He assumes that if the Gospels say X happened, then X happened and that's it. There’s no attempt even once to explain why he thinks that. Instead he just makes repeated claims like “unmistakably historical”, “beyond the possibility of doubt”, “It rings true...” , “the language of St. Mark is to my mind conclusive”, ”palpably true to life”, “it reads from a transcript from life”, “This is obviously a true history” etc. The whole thing in other words is opinion and assertion with no attempt at the tools of historicity.
In Chapter 9 he properly gives the game away when he says: “We have been proceeding rather on the assumption that we can postulate anything of the disciples providing that it accounts, superficially at least, for their behaviour.'”
Some though prefer evidence to “postulating anything”, which is why this type of guff doesn’t find its way onto History curricula, however much you happen to like its confirmation of your biases.
Anyways, I’m not here.
You are still as stuck with having suggested an alternative historical narrative which needs justification as Gordon is.
Nope - having reasonable doubts about one version of history does not require the doubter to make up alternative versions. It is a matter for those promoting a particular version to show that they have taken reasonable steps to assess the risk of mistakes and lies: so how are you getting on with that?It automatically suggests a different history Gordon. Which then demands anything you demand of the narrative in front of you.
It automatically suggests a different history Gordon. Which then demands anything you demand of the narrative in front of you.
Incidentally Alan, how did he consider the possibility of deliberate fabrication that was convincingly done so that it might appear authentic to those who had abandoned healthy scepticism?I think you overestimate the literary prowess of the writers from this period.
I think you overestimate the literary prowess of the writers from this period.
And incidentally Gordon, how would you consider the possibility that your supposed healthy scepticism might be hiding you from the truth?
I think you overestimate the literary prowess of the writers from this period.
And incidentally Gordon, how would you consider the possibility that your supposed healthy scepticism might be hiding you from the truth?
And incidentally Gordon, how would you consider the possibility that your supposed healthy scepticism might be hiding you from the truth?Actually healthy scepticism is exactly what helps you to differentiation between the actual truth and something which isn't true, albeit may be vehemently believed by some people.
Which makes no sense and is not supported by other sources. Therefore Luke is wrong.There is data that shows a census was taken in Egypt every 14 years beginning from the time of Augustus, who had previously won control of Egypt after defeating Mark Anthony in a naval battle. So this could have applied across the Roman empire. If we know there was a census in Syria in 6 AD there could have been one 14 years before that, 8 BC, and the Jews were particularly obstinate about that sort of thing so they may have resisted for several years.
Don't be silly - if I doubt one version of history since the risks that it might contain mistakes or lies hadn't been addressed, then it may imply there might be an alternative: along the lines of if 'x' didn't happen as claimed then either 'x' happened differently or even that 'x' didn't happen at all - even so I'm not required to, and I don't have any basis to, propose an alternative version of history that would stand scrutiny.Not only may apply but does but progress is obviously being made by you in the right direction.
To use your own terms: in doubting one narrative on the basis it may contain mistakes or lies I'm not in a position to produce an alternative narrative that would withstand the same level of scrutiny that I think you Christian chappies are avoiding when it comes to the NT narrative.
The description of Mary riding to Bethlehem to be registered on a donkey heavily pregnant is not something that you could easily say was made up, anyway.Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.
Actually healthy scepticism is exactly what helps you to differentiation between the actual truth and something which isn't true, albeit may be vehemently believed by some people.I agree as long as the sceptic is able to analyse matters with an open mind, but I get the impression that many on this forum do their best to quickly find fault with any pro Christian arguments in order to dismiss them without fully analysing them.
I agree as long as the sceptic is able to analyse matters with an open mind, but I get the impression that many on this forum do their best to quickly find fault with any pro Christian arguments in order to dismiss them without fully analysing them.
Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.just to let you know,
Point being that if you are finding a description so compelling that doesn't even exist in the gospels, but is clearly a much later embellishment, then why should we take your comment seriously.
I agree as long as the sceptic is able to analyse matters with an open mind, but I get the impression that many on this forum do their best to quickly find fault with any pro Christian arguments in order to dismiss them without fully analysing them.I think you have this entirely the wrong way around - the issue being those with faith being unable to assess elements of their religion objectively, and resorting to special pleading that they would never accept in other arenas.
I think you have this entirely the wrong way around - the issue being those with faith being unable to assess elements of their religion objectively, and resorting to special pleading that they would never accept in other arenas.Really! When the default delusion held by many atheists is the Torvill and Dean of special pleadery.
Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.
Point being that if you are finding a description so compelling that doesn't even exist in the gospels, but is clearly a much later embellishment, then why should we take your comment seriously.
It says that the census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Judea. That firmly dates it to 6CE or later. More to the point, the decree allegedly emanates from Augustus and is a census of the whole World (Roman empire presumably). There's no evidence that this census ever took place.
More problems for the census:
Galilee was a client kingdom not directly under control of Rome.
If Jews had been allowed to travel from a client kingdom (Galilee) to a Roman province (Judea) to register, it would have rendered the census useless. Not only that but the economic disruption would have been a disaster.
The census is merely Luke's plot device to get Jesus to be both born in Bethlehem and from Nazareth.
Then you have archeological evidence that Quirinus could have been in Syria in a high up position at that time. (Will post that shortly).To quote John MacArthur,
I think you have this entirely the wrong way around - the issue being those with faith being unable to assess elements of their religion objectively, and resorting to special pleading that they would never accept in other arenas.But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it. I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.
AB,
That’s a falsehood commonly used by Christian apologists. In fact Morrison (whose real name by the way somewhat pleasingly was Albert Ross) was a believer in the Christian Jesus all along, and he just set out to examine the reported events leading up to and after the crucifixion.
But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it. I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.
To quote John MacArthur,
"A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli, which is near Rome, in A.D. 1764, a ... contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who it states was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus. Now we're starting to make sense. Somebody was governor twice. That could be just what we need. Once in A.D. 6 to 9 and another time previously back in the B.C. time when that first census took place as what Luke says. The name of the official is not given on that fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that as far as is known can fit no one other than Quirinius, and we do have some historical records about him."
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-22/jesus-birth-in-bethlehem-part-1
But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it.Regardless of whether you are able to recognise this or not your faith is entirely sustained on the basis of special pleading - if not you would accept the countless myriad of other gods purported to exist as the evidence for them is just as compelling (or rather just as lacking) as that for your god. The only reason you accept your god's existence and reject the others despite equally lacking evidence for either is, of course, special pleading.
I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.Except that, of course, you fail to provide any objective evidence. I take an objective and consistent approach that doesn't rely on special pleading. Namely if compelling and objective evidence arises for the existence of god or gods I will those to believe in the existence of that god or gods. In the current absence of objective evidence for the existence of any gods I choose not to believe in their existence.
Could you give some examples of these conversions please Alanmore examples here:
more examples here:Quickly looked at the link, and it is hardly a convincing site.
http://askawiseman.com/skeptics/
I think you overestimate the literary prowess of the writers from this period.
And incidentally Gordon, how would you consider the possibility that your supposed healthy scepticism might be hiding you from the truth?
There is data that shows a census was taken in Egypt every 14 years beginning from the time of AugustusWhat about the Lukan census of the "whole world" that allegedly took place in 6CE? I do not doubt there were censuses in those time and it would make sense for Quirinius to take a census of his province when he took over, but that is not the whole World and Nazareth wasn't even in his province.
So this could have applied across the Roman empire.There is no evidence at all that it did.
If we know there was a census in Syria in 6 AD there could have been one 14 years before that, 8 BC, and the Jews were particularly obstinate about that sort of thing so they may have resisted for several years.Luke explicitly frames the census as being cast the beginning of the reign of Quirinius which was 6CE.
The description of Mary riding to Bethlehem to be registered on a donkey heavily pregnant is not something that you could easily say was made upIt was made up. There I said it and it was easy.
Don't bother. I've heard that bollocks before.
Then you have archeological evidence that Quirinus could have been in Syria in a high up position at that time. (Will post that shortly).
Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.
Point being that if you are finding a description so compelling that doesn't even exist in the gospels, but is clearly a much later embellishment, then why should we take your comment seriously.
Oops!!I thought I did more than hint.
Nobody has yet suggested (though I think jeremy hinted at it) that Luke made up the story in order to engineer a fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
My point is that it's a very imaginative detail to put in a made-up story, a man travelling 85 miles with his pregnant wife (probably on a donkey). So it has to do with the thread topic: we have a fine detail that only a very imaginative author would think to insert if it was made up.But it wasn't put in the story at least not by Luke. Your whole argument is based on a falsehood. Furthermore, the logic of your argument is false: people who are lying embellish more than people who are telling the truth.
It may have been something to do with the land allotted to each patriarchal tribe having to be kept within the same tribe throughout successive generations. It would have only applied for the Jewish territory within the empire.Why would the Romans care about patriarchal tribes of a conquered culture?
To quote John MacArthur,
"A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli, which is near Rome, in A.D. 1764, a ... contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who it states was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus. Now we're starting to make sense. Somebody was governor twice. That could be just what we need. Once in A.D. 6 to 9 and another time previously back in the B.C. time when that first census took place as what Luke says. The name of the official is not given on that fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that as far as is known can fit no one other than Quirinius, and we do have some historical records about him."
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-22/jesus-birth-in-bethlehem-part-1
jeremyp,
Well, each to his own I guess. Me, I find "It rings true to me" type statements to be vapid and dull, to be ploughed through looking for an actual argument that never comes. Others though have different tastes.
I'm supposed to be retired here by the way ; - ) All best, over and out.
Firstly, the evidence that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria consists only of wishful thinkingI take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but simply someone from the town of Cyrene?
I take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but the town of Cyrene?"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"
"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"
I don't think so, although I'd be interested if you can find an expert in Koine Greek who supports your hypothesis.
Also Cyrene is in Libya.
I take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but simply someone from the town of Cyrene?
"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"I've checked and apparently a lot of Greek male names end in S.
I don't think so, although I'd be interested if you can find an expert in Koine Greek who supports your hypothesis.
Also Cyrene is in Libya.
I've checked and apparently a lot of Greek male names end in S.Who was governor when?
Κυρηνίου ends in ou because it's the genitive case. So it is the name of a person, Cyrenius
Who was governor when?6 AD according to historians.
6 AD according to historians.ah, so you are dropping the nonsense about the town of Cyrene and back with the fact that ' Luke' was wrong.
Hi blue of happy memory,This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.
One wonders just what 'ringing truth' he perceived when comparing Mark's account with Matthew's. The latter says an angel came down in front of them and did the job, Mark's says the stone was already rolled, and the ladies went inside the tomb and saw a young man. Morrison's critical faculties seem very limited.
That's supposing there was any bloody tomb in the first place. If Jesus was indeed crucified, he may well have been left to decompose on the cross, and had his corpse picked away by vultures. That happened often enough. Not the sort of thing you want told about your hero after he's been deified.
St Paul made something of the less salubrious aspects of crucifixion, by saying that "Jesus had become a curse for us" (referring to some text in Leviticus, I believe). This was one way he tried to present Jesus as a scapegoat, atoning for the sins of the world.
ah, so you are dropping the nonsense about the town of Cyrene and back with the fact that ' Luke' was wrong.That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.
That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.
That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.If it weren't a gospel you would say it was wrong though.
If it weren't a gospel you would say it was wrong though.Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?
Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?No, the story does not 'ring true' because it is wrong. That you are refusing to accept that only shows that your statements on it are worthless.
A recently born saviour laid in a feeding trough, shepherds visiting the family etc all suggest authenticity, unless the author was highly imaginative.
If the account didn't have this kind of detail I would suggest Luke was wrong, yes.
This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.
Plus you would expect discrepancies between Matthew and mark in the same way two witnesses to a goal might say it was set up by different players.
An account written based on stories could certainly contain such details and include some historically accurate details. That doesn't mean that the account is an accurate record of events.
No, the story does not 'ring true' because it is wrong. That you are refusing to accept that only shows that your statements on it are worthless.Do you accept that Josephus could be wrong?
Do you accept that Josephus could be wrong?About what?
About what?About the census being at the same time as when Quirinus disposed of Archelaus’s money
Why don't you answer the question you were asked Spud?Ah, the question. Well, I think Luke may have meant that Quirinus, who afterwards became the governor of Syria, took the census in the time of king Herod. See Barnes commentary.
Ah, the question. Well, I think Luke may have meant that Quirinus, who afterwards became the governor of Syria, took the census in the time of king Herod. See Barnes commentary.
But could he have been wrong?In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway.
In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway.
Plus you would expect discrepancies between Matthew and mark in the same way two witnesses to a goal might say it was set up by different players.
In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway.
I suggest you start actually reading the epistles. There is practically nothing in them that confirms much of the gospels, except that Paul says that Jesus instituted the Eucharist, that the crucifixion occurred, and that some sort of resurrection occurred - but a spiritual one only. Nothing of the nature of the completely contradictory details in the gospels.You are playing down elements in the epistles namely the need for salvation and its satisfaction in Jesus.
Furthermore, he effectively wipes out just about all the Jewish law, in order to instate his own peculiar theology. If you accept that Jesus said 'not one jot nor tittle of the Law shall pass away', you can't avoid these well known facts (given full attention for over 200 years, and in particular by Schweitzer)
That there are sentiments in Paul's writing that Jesus might well have admired (such as the famous chapter on 'Charity') does nothing to confirm your erroneous suggestion that the Epistles support the gospels in essentials.
They don't. Much of those details owe more to the writers' imaginations or the assemblage of stories long in circulation, which may well have originated with other preachers other than Jesus in any case.
But could he have been wrong?I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.
I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.
Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth. Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia. First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved. Second, the inscription has been mistranslated. It should read: "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist. Archer does not refer to the Tivoli inscription directly; but still argues that since Luke knew of the census of 6 C.E., he correctly called this one Quirinius' "first" (prote). But Fitzmyer shows conclusively that the grammar clearly indicates that this was the first census in Judea, not Quirinius' first enrollment.2
I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.
The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.
I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.But Luke's account doesn't even agree with the other account in the bible, from Matthew.
The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.
This chap here suggests otherwise, as well as pointing out various problems surrounding the census story.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm
Mr. Whiston and Dr. Prideaux suppose, that the words of the preceding verse, In those days there went out a decree, &c., refer to the time of making the census; and the subsequent words, This enrolment was first made, &c., to the time of levying the tax. “When Judea,” says the latter, “was put under a Roman procurator, then taxes were first paid to the Romans — and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, who is in Greek called Cyrenius, was governor of Syria: so that there were two distinct particular actions in this matter, done at two distinct and different times: the first was making the survey, and the second the levying the tax thereupon. And the first verse here is to be understood of the former, and the second only of the latter. And this reconciles that evangelist with Josephus; for it is manifest from that author, that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria, or any tax levied on Judea, till Archelaus was deposed. And therefore the making of the description cannot be that which was done while Cyrenius was governor of Syria; — but the levying the tax thereon certainly was.” In accordance with this interpretation of the passage, Dr. Campbell reads the verse, This first register took effect when Cyrenius was president of Syria, observing that, by this translation of the words, divers objections are obviated. “The register,” says he, “whatever was the intention of it, was made in Herod’s time, but had then little or no consequences. When, after the banishment of Archelaus, Judea was annexed to Syria, and converted into a province, the register of the inhabitants formerly taken served as a directory for laying on the census, to which the country was then subjected. Not but that there must have happened considerable changes on the people during that period. But the errors which these changes might occasion, could, with proper attention, be easily rectified. And thus it might be justly said, that an enrolment which had been made several years before, did not take effect, or produce consequences worthy of notice, till then.”
Your chap is responding to Archer, but what I said was that Luke knew about the AD 6 census, and describes it correctly in verse 2 as being the one when Quirinius was Governor (Contrary to Archer I think this census is the same one Luke mentions in Acts 5, not a previous one). Luke mentioned Augustine's decree in verse 1. That decree would have been issued at some point while Judea was under Herod the Great, and is the reason why Joseph and Mary went to register. Judea would have been included in the enrollment, but not for individual taxation to Caesar, which came about in AD 6.
Here is where I saw this theory:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/luke/2.htm
or could Luke just be wrong?About what?
About what?
That decree would have been issued at some point while Judea was under Herod the Great, and is the reason why Joseph and Mary went to register.But regardless of all the views of actual historians that Luke's account appears at best to be scribbling up a whole range of non-aligned events, what about Matthew.
This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.
That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.The discrepancy is easily explained. In fact both nativities are almost certainly fiction.
Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?No, it doesn't ring true. The whole story rings false. Nobody would organise a census in which everybody would up sticks and move to a completely different administrative region to be registered. It would render the census useless. It's just bollocks.
A recently born saviour laid in a feeding trough, shepherds visiting the family etc all suggest authenticity, unless the author was highly imaginative.I'm sure there were plenty of imaginative people living in the first century.
If the account didn't have this kind of detail I would suggest Luke was wrong, yes.He is wrong.
Where is your evidence that Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be registered?
The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.
On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.
You can't cherry pick the bits that run true and ignore the bits that don't.
On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.Not sure where this executed criminal bit comes from. Pilate found no fault in him. Jesus was an innocent man in the eyes of Roman law. He died a victim of political expediency. And Pilate was only too aware of this. Thus not surprising that Pilate allowed him to be buried in the tomb of a rich man.
You can't cherry pick the bits that ring true and ignore the bits that don't.
Not sure where this executed criminal bit comes from.The clue is in the fact that he was crucified (i.e. executed) as somebody who had broken the law (Jewish law according to the gospels)
Pilate found no fault in him. Jesus was an innocent man in the eyes of Roman law.Here's another thing that "rings false". According to other sources, Pilate was vicious even by the standards of the day. In reality, he would have had a Jewish troublemaker executed without a second thought.
He died a victim of political expediency. And Pilate was only too aware of this. Thus not surprising that Pilate allowed him to be buried in the tomb of a rich man.Utter rubbish. Political expediency would dictate that an innocent man falsely convicted would continue to be treated as a criminal even after death.
The clue is in the fact that he was crucified (i.e. executed) as somebody who had broken the law (Jewish law according to the gospels)So you reject the Scripture narrative up until the point where details of his grave are given. Then you accept that because it suits your argument. Not sure who is doing the cherry picking but I could hazard a pretty good guess.
Here's another thing that "rings false". According to other sources, Pilate was vicious even by the standards of the day. In reality, he would have had a Jewish troublemaker executed without a second thought.
Another thing that rings false: which Christian would have been inside Pilate's house to witness the verbal exchange between him and Jesus? It's a reasonable hypothesis that all the stuff with Pilate was made up.
Utter rubbish. Political expediency would dictate that an innocent man falsely convicted would continue to be treated as a criminal even after death.
Another thing that rings false.
So you reject the Scripture narrative up until the point where details of his grave are given. Then you accept that because it suits your argument.You seem to be confused.
Not sure who is doing the cherry picking but I could hazard a pretty good guess.Yes, it's Spud.
In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.
Would this be the Benson that died in 1821? If so, I'm wondering what historians have turned up since then.
In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?Bzzzzzzzzz special pleading.
Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.
Bzzzzzzzzz special pleading.
You seem to be confused.I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.
I'm pretty sure I'm arguing that the details about Jesus' grave are not believable. Neither are the details given about Pilate's encounter with him.
Yes, it's Spud.
Just in case what I was doing with the "rings false" stuff is too subtle for you, I'm parodying Spud's "rings true" argument. Spud's MO is to comb the gospels for some detail that "rings true" and then claim that this makes the gospels more likely to be reliable. Notwithstanding that he never defines what "rings true" means or provides objective criteria for telling what things ring true, he argues from the specific to the general.
His MO: find something that rings true and then claim it makes the whole gospel true is exactly mirrored by my new MO of finding something that rings false and then claiming it makes the whole gospel unreliable. The main difference is that I give reasoning about why things ring false.
I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.
With the gospels I'm not so much talking about whether they flow as whether the details are the kind of details that someone would make up.
I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.
With the gospels I'm not so much talking about whether they flow as whether the details are the kind of details that someone would make up.
And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.
Would somebody make up the details of the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate if they weren't there and couldn't possibly know. Yes, they would. That is a detail that rings false. Filling in conversations of which there is no record is exactly the kind of things that the writers of historical fiction and "drama documentaries" do.
Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.
Reimarus' main contribution to theological science was his analysis of the historical Jesus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes ("An apology for, or some words in defense of, reasoning worshipers of God" — only read by a few intimate friends during his lifetime), which he left unpublished
And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.
Would somebody make up the details of the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate if they weren't there and couldn't possibly know. Yes, they would. That is a detail that rings false. Filling in conversations of which there is no record is exactly the kind of things that the writers of historical fiction and "drama documentaries" do.
Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.
Regarding the conversation itself, Calvin says about Jesus' reply to Pilate ("you have said so"):
<<But as he did not intend to take pains to vindicate himself, as is usually the case with criminals, the Evangelists put down a doubtful reply; as if they had said, that he did not deny that he was a king, but that he indirectly pointed out the calumny which his enemies unjustly brought against him>>
Does this sound made up?
No attempt to vindicate himself, as we would expect if this was fiction.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.
Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.
Regarding the conversation itself, Calvin says about Jesus' reply to Pilate ("you have said so"):
<<But as he did not intend to take pains to vindicate himself, as is usually the case with criminals, the Evangelists put down a doubtful reply; as if they had said, that he did not deny that he was a king, but that he indirectly pointed out the calumny which his enemies unjustly brought against him>>
Does this sound made up?
No attempt to vindicate himself, as we would expect if this was fiction.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.
Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus?The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.
The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.
Yes they are the kind of things that are made up. An imagined conversation that the authors of the gospels could not have heard. Rings false.
It's just one of the many details in the gospels that ring false.
Especially as Christianity was created by that guy Paul a good while after Jesus died.I think you know what i'm going to ask.
I think you know what i'm going to ask.
The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present. But even this is unlikely. However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus. Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes. And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers. They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.
There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present. But even this is unlikely. However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus. Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes. And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers. They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.Pure speculation from start to end.
And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers.If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.
If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.Bzzzzzzz Argumentum ad populum.
Bzzzzzzz Argumentum ad populum.
Pure speculation from start to end.I would argue that suggesting that Pilate would not have been totally alone with Jesus but that there probably would have been some soldiers present for his security is a reasonably logical assumption to make and cannot be summarily dismissed as pure speculation. So definitely not quite from start to end.
If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.Well there were probably some ten thousand or more present at the feeding of the five thousand, which number included only the men present. And who knows how many were in Jerusalem proclaiming, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' on Palm Sunday. We are also told in many passages about large crowds following Him.
Especially as Christianity was created by that guy Paul a good while after Jesus died.Yeah, that's not true. From Paul's own writings, it is clear that Christianity already existed when he converted.
Well there were probably some ten thousand or more present at the feeding of the five thousand, which number included only the men present. And who knows how many were in Jerusalem proclaiming, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' on Palm Sunday. We are also told in many passages about large crowds following Him.
This has led to a number of commentators suggesting that another possible translation of this verse would be, ‘This was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.Any credible ones? The NRSV says "while Quirinius was governor ofd Syria". Is there really any reason to double that translation?
If this is correct we can then see how the ever meticulous Luke is being careful to distinguish between the troublesome census of AD 6 which was accompanied by resistance and violence and was generally referred to in Scripture simply as ‘the census' (Acts 5:37)So meticulous that he used wording that you claim is ambiguous. That is the opposite of meticulous.
and an earlier census when Jesus was actually born. Whether or not Quirinius played any part in the administration of this earlier census or not then becomes of little consequence.When Herod was king, Judea was a client kingdom. Do you have any evidence of a census that occurred at that time and that client kingdoms took part in?
There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.Seriously? The leader of your cult is on trial for his life and you just hang around inside Pilate's house? That rings very false.
But even this is unlikely. However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus. Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes. And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers. They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.Jesus would have been just another one of the hundreds of trouble makers that passed through Pilate's hands. There is no reason to suppose they would have noticed anything special about him. Your hypothesis rings false.
Seriously? The leader of your cult is on trial for his life and you just hang around inside Pilate's house? That rings very false.I am absolutely serious. You are deliberately misquoting. What I said was,'there were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present. But even this is unlikely,'
Jesus would have been just another one of the hundreds of trouble makers that passed through Pilate's hands. There is no reason to suppose they would have noticed anything special about him. Your hypothesis rings false.
How do you know these estimates are accurate? After all over and under estimates do happen depending on the bias of the claimant: for example, the numbers claimed for Trump's inauguration (by his supporters) was shown to be an over-estimate.I would suggest that even if the figure of five thousand men represented a 50% over-estimate this would not adversely impact on the truth of the fact that Jesus had a large following in the Holy Land, both during His earthly ministry and subsequent to the cross, at least up until the onset of significant persecutions which dispersed many followers.
I would suggest that even if the figure of five thousand men represented a 50% over-estimate this would not adversely impact on the truth of the fact that Jesus had a large following in the Holy Land, both during His earthly ministry and subsequent to the cross, at least up until the onset of significant persecutions which dispersed many followers.
I am absolutely serious. You are deliberately misquoting. What I said was,'there were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present. But even this is unlikely,'Can you explain the substantive difference between "Jewish disciple of Jesus" and "Christian"? Not that it matters. If you were a follower of Jesus, no matter what we label you, you'd keep away from places where you might get arrested and crucified.
Bzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzz BzzzzzzzNope Davey is saying that Jesus message was weak because it didn't attract great numbers.
Not even close - argumentum ad populum means something else entirely.
Nope Davey is saying that Jesus message was weak because it didn't attract great numbers.
That is a fallacy.
Which fallacy, and why?Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.
Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.
If Prof D is arguing exactly that, and I haven't looked, on what basis would his argument be fallacious? That a charismatic figure attracted minimal interest in their own time could be due to a variety of reasons.You are equating minimal response or interest with weakness of message. Are you safe in that respect? I think not. Atheist are in the minority in the world. Does that make the message that there are no reasons to believe in God weak? You would probably be the first to claim argumentum ad populum then.
Even if you felt Prof D's approach was fallacious it wouldn't be an ad pop : you seem to have invented the inverse of the ad pop as a new fallacy, the argumentum ad unpopulum, perhaps.
If not an AAP then he is still committing a fallacy. You can use the doubt over what it should be called to turdpolish the prof's statements if you wish.
You are equating minimal response or interest with weakness of message. Are you safe in that respect? I think not.
Atheist are in the minority in the world. Does that make the message that there are no reasons to believe in God weak?
You would probably be the first to claim argumentum ad populum then.
If not then he is still committing a fallacy.
You can use the doubt over what it should be called to turdpolish the prof's statements if you wish.
I'm not addressing what Prof D said at all: the issue here is you erroneously citing the argumentum ad populum fallacy.No, Gordon that's your issue.
No, Gordon that's your issue.
All i'm concerned with is to show that to state a person's argument is weak because it does not garner sufficient followers is a fallacy.
Now you either agree with that or you don't.
If you don't then. I have to say your message about there being no reason to believe in God or gods is weak because atheists are in the minority and you obviously agree with me.
As maybe as all that is, an argument isn't weak or strong because of the numbers which support it. That is the basis of argumentum ad populum.
That a weak argument doesn't attract much support seems possible: after all, in electoral politics, the Monster Raving Loony Party are an example of a weak argument attracting little popular support, so I suspect credibility is a factor you should consider before reaching for the fallacies.
Less people support Jesus therefore his message is weak.
Judaism was supported by more people so that message was strong.
Less people are atheists than therefore the message that there are no reasonsto believe in god is weak.
More people support the idea that there are reasons to believe God therefore the message is strong.
Which statements are fallacious and which are argumentum ad populum?
Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.No. You need to go back and read what was actually said.
As maybe as all that is, an argument isn't weak or strong because of the numbers which support it. That is the basis of argumentum ad populum.
I don't, because I don't think you've thought things through very well and I suspect you don't understand fallacies.
I don't understand them like you seem to ;) Gordon.
Never mind: the are lots of sources you can access to improve your knowledge.It cannot be much good given your understanding of fallacies.
This one is not bad.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
I don't understand them like you seem to ;) Gordon.The argument ad populum is the fallacy of claiming something is true because lots of people believe it to be true. A simple example: until the 17th century most people believe ed the Earth was fixed in space and the Sun went round it. Arguing that because most people believed that, it was true is argument ad populum.
The argument ad populum is the fallacy of claiming something is true because lots of people believe it to be true. A simple example: until the 17th century most people believe ed the Earth was fixed in space and the Sun went round it. Arguing that because most people believed that, it was true is argument ad populum.The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.
Some arguments involving numbers are not argument ad populum. For example you might claim that Christianity has a strong message and you might cite as evidence the fact that there are a lot of Christians in the World. This is not ad populum because I think we can agree that a religion having a strong message does imply it would have a lot of followers. The argument is still fallacious but it is fallacious because "A implies B" and "B implies A" are not logically equivalent. i.e.that there are a lot of Christians does not imply that the Christian message is strong. There could be a lot of Christians because of some other reason.
However, if the consequence is false, then that does show that the hypothesis is false. If X has a strong message implies X has a lot of followers, but X does not have a lot of followers, then we know "X has a strong message" must be false. Professor Davy's argument that set you off on your downward spiral of doomed logic was exactly of this type.
Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.Not correct.
The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.A weak message is one that fails to convince - there is a subtle difference between that and what you suggest.
On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.
You can't cherry pick the bits that ring true and ignore the bits that don't.
To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.
But regardless of all the views of actual historians that Luke's account appears at best to be scribbling up a whole range of non-aligned events, what about Matthew.Or simply that Matthew didn't know that they were just in Bethlehem for the census. The "two witnesses seeing an event from different angles" thing.
In Matthew's version there was no need for a census or a track on a donkey (not that that animal is ever mentioned) to allow Jesus to be born in Bethlehem - why - because he they were already there, only relocated to Nazareth much later, after Jesus' birth. So the two gospel account, on this issue are terminally inconsistent.
Where is your evidence that Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be registered?
Why would this registration apply to client kingdoms?
Why would anybody let you register in a town with which you have no real connection?
Why mention a census that occurred ten years later if you are narrating events that happened during the original registration?
Why are you not listening to anything anybody else here is telling you?
You seem to be confused.I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.
I'm pretty sure I'm arguing that the details about Jesus' grave are not believable. Neither are the details given about Pilate's encounter with him.
Yes, it's Spud.
Or simply that Matthew didn't know that they were just in Bethlehem for the census. The "two witnesses seeing an event from different angles" thing.That misinterprets what is in Matthew.
I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.
A weak message is one that fails to convince - there is a subtle difference between that and what you suggest.See my previous post where I accept that subtle difference and the explanation you are giving here by way of clarification.
So the message of later evangelists (most of whom would never have met Jesus, including Paul) was strong in that it convinced many. However the actual teaching of Jesus was weak in that despite the fact that thousands heard him message directly from him (if we accept the bible claims of preaching to thousands) he failed to convince many - indeed a tiny number ended up as adherents.
On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.I don't think people are accepting a resurrection on the basis of the mere story but on the implications of the resurrection and return to 'heaven'. People hear the story as part of the whole teaching that we need salvation and that is met in Christ. A resurrection suggests that Jesus is not dead in the sense that William the conqueror is dead. They also consider the divine claim. If there is an encounter with Christ also.
The key test is one of consistency. Were there to be a similar story with similar paucity of evidence would you believe it. For Jeremy and myself I guess we'd take exactly the same sceptical line as we do with the story of Jesus - we are consistent. Christians tend to cherry pick and engage in special pleading, accepting as true claims in the bible without hesitation that they would accept in a million years in another context.
What this suggests is that Jesus's charismatic following, dropped markedly (from what level we have no statistics).But we do if we use the claims in the gospels, which suggest that thousands of people (out of a relatively small population at the time) went to hear Jesus preach. Indeed there is also the (rather hyperbolic) claim of 500 people witnessing a dead man alive again in one place.
If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.
Just repost of the post which ''started it all''See my comments in my last post which addresses these issues.
First of all I've noticed you seem to be equating profound effect with becoming a believer. I'm not sure that's safe.
Secondly you talk in later posts about Jesus lack of ability to garner following as opposed to the later evangelists. Here you talk about Christianity.
But we do if we sue the claims in the gospels, which suggest that thousands of people (out of a relatively small population at the time) went to hear Jesus preach. Indeed there is also the (rather hyperbolic) claim of 500 people witnessing a dead man alive again in one place.Convinced about what though?. In the original post you say Christianity did not convince them. Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.
Yet that population (i.e. those living at the time and in the same place as Jesus during his ministry) remained resolutely Jewish.
In a manner I am not suggesting that his charismatic following dropped - i.e. people were convinced and then lost that conviction. Rather I am suggesting that they weren't convinced in the first place. And we need to recognise two further issues - those of potential exaggeration or misrepresentation by those writing decades later, with an agenda. Exaggeration - that perhaps Jesus reached very few people in his ministry rather than the thousands claimed. Misrepresentation - that the message of his ministry was not as claimed in the bible - rather that his message was a specifically Jewish one and actually quite successful in cementing those who heard him as good Jews - with a small number going 'off message' making messianic claims when that may not have been the message at all.
The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.
That would however make the person who claims that christianity is a strong message correct.
However if he was saying loads of supporters so must be strong in truth terms that is incorrect or conversely if few supporters then the message is weak in truth terms then that is also incorrect.
Philosophicalsociety.com gives this as an example. It is close to what the professor is arguing imho
''argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials.''
I think people like yourself try to divide and rule. While the believer is influenced by many aspects you seek to divide these up to reduce the whole and it's effect.
Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon makes several errors:Good morning Sir, I'm afraid cook was unable to order brown speckled due to an outbreak of chicken mange at the farm, here are your papers and sir needs to properly read the message board posts subsequent to the post sir is commenting on.......unless of course sir recognises that the professor could be in deep plop over the Privates request for the significance of the jewish population in first century Palestine remaining jewish and sir isattempting a diversionary derail?
1. Weak vs strong is ambiguous because it implies some relationship to the truth value of the statement – the sun orbiting the earth would have been a “strong” message once using this term. Persuasive vs not persuasive is closer to it, and the point made is that Jesus does not appear to have been persuasive for those who heard him.
2. “Christianity” (or actually the bewildering varieties of it) is only persuasive for those who identify as Christians, and the extent to which they are persuaded rather than got at before their critical faculties have developed is moot to say the least.
3. An argumentum ad populum is the assertion that popularity implies truthfulness. The Prof said no such thing – rather he merely made the point that the Christ narrative only caught the wind with the distance of space and time – ie, with the opportunity for the stories to be added to, embellished, edited for their eventual audience.
4. If the quote is correct, then it’s wrong – or at least incomplete. When a “politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is not committing the ad pop fallacy. This could just be a statement of fact. For there to be an ad pop the politician would also have to say, “because there are more people in the audience who think X and only one of you who thinks Y, the audience must be correct.”
And again none of that reflects what the Prof actually said in any case.
Apart from that though…
Good morning Sir, I'm afraid cook was unable to order brown speckled due to an outbreak of chicken mange at the farm, here are your papers and sir needs to properly read the message board posts subsequent to the post sir is commenting on.......unless of course sir recognises that the professor could be in deep plop over the Privates request for the significance of the jewish population in first century Palestine remaining jewish and sir isattempting a diversionary derail.
Eh? what I'm saying is that even Davey's clarification of what he meant by a weak argument was doesn't explain the significance of mentioning jews of Jesus time remaining jewish.
By all means attempt to explain without incurring argumentum ad populum if you can.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that Jesus failing to persuade those who actually heard him would be surprising for a (supposed) demigod, and that that statement has bugger all to do with attempting an ad pop.But in his original Davey does not say Jesus. He says Christianity,
Rather than make him an unpersuasive orator so he'd have to die horribly later on (albeit only for a bit) in the hope that that story would be believed long after and far away by people who weren't there, why wouldn't Dad just have made him a charismatic speaker in the first place?
In terms of making Jesus an insignificant orator o fpoor abilities. That is not biblical since he was powerful enough to present a threat to National authorities both roman and jewish authoritiesand that belies Davey's claims.Cherry picking again - the only evidence we have for this is in documents written by early Christians years later. Where is the evidence from specific Roman or Jewish sources (rather than Christian sources) to indicate that they considered him powerful enough to present a threat.
Cherry picking again - the only evidence we have for this is in documents written by early Christians years later. Where is the evidence from specific Roman or Jewish sources (rather than Christian sources) to indicate that they considered him powerful enough to present a threat.Oh dear
On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.I thought it was the miracles you found impossible to accept as historical, but now apparently it's the rest too, including the burial. Reverse cherry picking??
The key test is one of consistency. Were there to be a similar story with similar paucity of evidence would you believe it. For Jeremy and myself I guess we'd take exactly the same sceptical line as we do with the story of Jesus - we are consistent. Christians tend to cherry pick and engage in special pleading, accepting as true claims in the bible without hesitation that they would accept in a million years in another context.
I thought it was the miracles you found impossible to accept as historical, but now apparently it's the rest too, including the burial. Reverse cherry picking??
Nope - just than even in the routine claims in the NT, in addition to the miracles, there seems to be no way to either confirm the details or exclude the risks of mistakes or lies. In effect they are indistinguishable from fiction.And when was that fiction written.
And when was that fiction written.
And who wrote it.
And who was the audience.
And when did the fiction become accepted as fact
and who accepted it as fact
and who remained in the knowledge that it was fiction
and why was it not considered fiction for centuries
and how and why was it rediscovered as fiction
and why is it even now the thesis that it was fiction not widely recognised.
Come on then Gordon, Sky subscriptions could be cancelled in anticipation of you enlightening us.
Christianity failed to establish itself where it aroseBecause Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected. When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yoke of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)
No idea: not my claim you see, and if you read for comprehension you'll note I'm not claiming it is fiction: but that it is indistinguishable from fiction,Yes, Gordon that is a positive assertion. If it is indistinguishable from fiction why is it indistinguishable from fiction?
Because Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected. When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yolk of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)
Yes, Gordon that is a positive assertion. If it is indistinguishable from fiction why is it indistinguishable from fiction?
Since you haven't been able to justify it to date I think we can take it that with you it is an article of faith. Have a nice day.
Don't be silly, Vlad - all you need do is explain the basis for your concluding that the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT is negligible. Failing you doing that, so that these risks remain, is the answer to your 'why' question.This has been explained to you before. Gordon with reference to the early epistles.
This has been explained to you before. Gordon with reference to the early epistles.
Are you saying this hasn't been done or you don't accept the explanation.
I think it is clear that you dont want to justify any assertion.
Since I'm not obliged to be here to have my time wasted I shall bid you goodbye.
Convinced about what though?. In the original post you say Christianity did not convince them. Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.What about the purported 500 in one place - you cannot dismiss these people (if the story is true). They were allegedly witnesses of the resurrection, and would surely have looked to spread the astonishing news to those they knew etc. Yet we have no evidence whatsoever of a widespread groundswell of believers emerging from these hundreds and hundreds of 'witnesses' to a resurrection.
How do you know these early epistles don't contain mistakes or lies? You didn't ever explain that: as I recall you just indulged in some special pleading regarding these early Christians.Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.
I haven't made an assertion.
Cheerio then: haste ye back!
Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.
Jesus myth is fringe
Roman authorities and Jewish authorities were in a far better position at demonstrating Jesus myth and never managed it or attempted it .
Research on conspiracy theory shows that such a conspiracy has a low survival rate.
I need a date for a lie Gordon or several lies if you are saying it's all lies.
You are exceedingly amateur if you require an investigation and can't specify who or what to investigate.
However if we even suggest lies we are also suggesting a truth. Can you give that?
You're getting even sillier: I'm not claiming that anyone lied or made a mistake. Let us go back to basics.Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.
Do you think that in the recorded affairs of humans there is a risk of mistakes or lies creeping in?
Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.
So, are you saying your personal experience means that the writers of the NT didn't make mistakes of lie?I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?
Do you think that your personal experience might have been influenced by your prior interaction with the NT?
I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?
The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.Seems a reasonable definition to me.
That would however make the person who claims that christianity is a strong message correct.Since Christianity is currently the most popular religion in the World, it follows that it does have a strong message. Note that "strong" in this context is not synonymous with "true".
To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.
I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.No. My arguments are based on rationality and historical context. Yours are based on things "ringing true" (as if that means anything) and reliance on documents that are not fit for the purpose.
Because Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected.My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore he is the true messiah.
When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yoke of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)
My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore he is the true messiah.Correction- My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore people would not accept Bob as messiah (not: therefore Bob is not the messiah). This is what I said in the first place.
Correction- My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore people would not accept Bob as messiah (not: therefore Bob is not the messiah). This is what I said in the first place.Why were they expecting a different messiah? Because of the prophecies. If Jesus failed to match up with the prophecies then he is not the messiah, by definition.
Let's add Acts to the gospels, since it was written by Luke.So Jeremy Kyle is now the arbiter of truth is he?
Acts 12 contains a description of the escape of Peter from prison. Why would the author say that Rhoda the servant girl at Mark's mother's house ran back instead of opening the door when she recognized Peter's voice (v. 14)?
To make it sound more convincing? Or because it's true? To quote Jeremy Kyle, "Test says he's telling the truth" ;D ;D
So Jeremy Kyle is now the arbiter of truth is he?Because it makes a nice story.
Why wouldn’t the author say Rhoda ran back instead of opening the door?
Let's add Acts to the gospels, since it was written by Luke.
Acts 12 contains a description of the escape of Peter from prison. Why would the author say that Rhoda the servant girl at Mark's mother's house ran back instead of opening the door when she recognized Peter's voice (v. 14)?
To make it sound more convincing? Or because it's true? To quote Jeremy Kyle, "Test says he's telling the truth" ;D ;D
Because it makes a nice story.Embellishishing the story with detail is actually more a sign of fiction than truth telling. Story tellers do it because they think it adds authenticity and makes it more believable.
All sorts of records of historical events are embellished with purported details for which there is no evidence, or have even been proven flatly to be incorrect.
Also - how on earth would Luke know - he wasn't there at the time, and such detail is of the type that event eye witnesses typically get wrong or misconstrue - there have been countless studies showing the unreliability of eye witness accounts, for example of crimes or even in controlled experiments.
Embellishishing the story with detail is actually more a sign of fiction than truth telling. Story tellers do it because they think it adds authenticity and makes it more believable.Indeed.
Indeed.
There is simply no way that the levels of detail claimed in the bible stand up tot the credibility test, given that they were written decades later by people who weren't actual witnesses and likely to have got their information second, third, fourth hand etc. If today I ask half a dozen people who were at an event to recount in detail I will get 6 different versions - sure some of the basic elements will be the same, but details are likely to be different, and typically will involve detail that is irreconcilably different (meaning at least one person is wrong).
Indeed.Each person will recall different details. Hence the different accounts of the nativity. However, Mat and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived afterwards in Nazareth. It's what we expect!
There is simply no way that the levels of detail claimed in the bible stand up tot the credibility test, given that they were written decades later by people who weren't actual witnesses and likely to have got their information second, third, fourth hand etc. If today I ask half a dozen people who were at an event to recount in detail I will get 6 different versions - sure some of the basic elements will be the same, but details are likely to be different, and typically will involve detail that is irreconcilably different (meaning at least one person is wrong).
Each person will recall different details. Hence the different accounts of the nativity. However, Mat and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived afterwards in Nazareth. It's what we expect!For example, about 25 years ago I was with my two friends and we were travelling from church to someone's house for coffee. Paul, who was driving a separate car, didn't stop in time and hit the back of the car I was in which Ben was driving. We had just arrived.
Embellishishing the story with detail is actually more a sign of fiction than truth telling. Story tellers do it because they think it adds authenticity and makes it more believable.See my previous post. When someone is trying to recall an event, little details jog the memory and so are often included in the account. Hence in Mark's account of the calming of the storm, he adds that when they set off from the shore, "there were other boats with them".
See my previous post. When someone is trying to recall an event, little details jog the memory and so are often included in the account. Hence in Mark's account of the calming of the storm, he adds that when they set off from the shore, "there were other boats with them".Little details may become embedded over time and then retained - that is no guarantee that they are in any way an accurate reflection of what actually happened.
For example, about 25 years ago I was with my two friends and we were travelling from church to someone's house for coffee. Paul, who was driving a separate car, didn't stop in time and hit the back of the car I was in which Ben was driving. We had just arrived.Problem with your example is that it involves 2 people who were actually there, recalling their actual experience. In the bible the person writing down the experiences (decades later) wasn't like Ben or Paul in your story. He was like someone who might have met someone, who decades later knew someone who claims to have been told details of the event by Paul.
Now if you ask Paul to recount the incident he may not tell you that Ben and I had pulled over a little before the house we were going to, as we weren't sure which house it was. That may have been why he went into us.
Paul and Ben will probably recall details that I don't remember.
The bit about Rhoda in Acts 12 would be typical of the way people recall an event. That she forgot to let Peter in makes it more memorable. It's like being reminded of information you are trying to recall during an exam by the mannerisms of the lecturer who taught it.
For example, about 25 years ago I was with my two friends and we were travelling from church to someone's house for coffee. Paul, who was driving a separate car, didn't stop in time and hit the back of the car I was in which Ben was driving. We had just arrived.What make, model and colour of car was Paul driving?
Little details may become embedded over time and then retained - that is no guarantee that they are in any way an accurate reflection of what actually happened.
Prof,I think the implications of what you are saying would need application on more than the foundation of Christianity otherwise it looks a bit biased.
Just to note too that "little details" have a surprisingly huge effect on the re-telling of a story. Because the listener doesn't know which little detail the teller got wrong it becomes embedded in his re-telling, and so on. Small mistakes create a compounding error effect in other words so it takes very few re-tellings for the narrative to become wholly distorted even though each mistake seems individually small - hence the famous, "send reinforcements, we're going to advance" becomes "send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" after a very small number of radio officers have sent it on. It's the same phenomenon incidentally when someone is asked to trace a drawing, the next person is asked to trace her drawing etc (ie each person in the chain has only the previous tracing to copy) and in no time the original picture of a tiger turns into a daffodil, moreover with each person along the line convinced she did a near-accurate job.
Spud's confidence in the veracity of re-told stories is sweet, but it fundamentally misses the effect of compounded mistakes. That Mark, Luke etc may well have been as honest as the day is long has no relevance at all to the very high risk of distortions in the re-tellings. So were the radio operators.
Little details may become embedded over time and then retained - that is no guarantee that they are in any way an accurate reflection of what actually happened.Do you mean that a person's recollection of them years later is not guaranteed to be accurate? Well either there were other boats with them or there weren't. Either Rhoda did let Peter in straight away or she didn't. You can't really say, "Oh that must be inaccurate" - it's made as simple as possible so as to be plain.
Mark was writing decades laterWhat is your evidence for this?
- and of course critically those who might have been witnesses to the early event in Jesus' ministry would have had little recognition that what they were witnessing might in decades time be seen as important. Hence they would have had no special reason to carefully record the event, including any special details.You are joking aren't you? Someone calms a storm and it's not important?
What we are seeing is classic 'after the event' embellishment.I agree that fiction writers can embellish their stories to add veracity, but that does not mean they did in this case.
I think the implications of what you are saying would need application on more than the foundation of Christianity otherwise it looks a bit biased.
Apart from three or fourpence for a dance are there any actual comparable examples?
The point of the NT is or wicked genius of the NT depending on your point of view is a believing community as implicitly and explicitly mentioned in the epistles and a referential community in Jerusalem and between them the integrity of the account is maintained.
Do you really mean this? If details are retained then they are accurate.
Spud,No- see edit!
Did you mean to say that?
In which Vladdo,If it's well known you will have no trouble giving an example where it has happened within and between communities.
Fails to grasp that I was describing a generalised and well-known phenomenon .
No- see edit!
Apart from the already explained problems of the retelling of stories, the real problems as I see it are these.Again there is the misunderstanding that a strange ending of Jesus time on earth was the only thing remarkable about him.
1) All the people involved were of the peasant class of an ancient Middle-Eastern country … fishermen, carpenters, etc. and the chances of any one of them being able to read or write is negligible. If this story was about the same kind of peasants living 1800 years later … in 1790 -1920 for instance … still virtually none of them would be educated enough to have reported such happenings accurately.
2) Imagine an old magazine had been discovered, with a story telling us that Charlie Smith a plumber living in Basildon in 1960 had been run over and killed … and there were 500 witnesses (unfortunately, unnamed) who saw him alive and well a week later - though nothing of this amazing event got into any of the newspapers at the time. Who would take it seriously? Certainly not Spud or Vlad!
Again there is the misunderstanding that a strange ending of Jesus time on earth was the only thing remarkable about him.
So you are dead right a raising from the dead might leave you with some vague acknowledgement that strange things happen or that there was a higher power.
The christianity that emerges very shortly after IN THE EPISTLES was not based onsome vagues acknowledgement that strange things happen in this world.
But he's right about the epistles. They disprove the idea that the gospels were myth.
I have to hand it to you Vlad, your posts are consistent, consistently incompressible?
Regards ippy
But he's right about the epistles. They disprove the idea that the gospels were myth.
But he's right about the epistles. They disprove the idea that the gospels were myth.
But he's right about the epistles. They disprove the idea that the gospels were myth.
An epistle is a writing directed or sent to a person or group of people, usually an elegant and formal didactic letter.You mean the Emperor Watsisnamian the sixth.
So which of these peasants were capable of writing such letters? Isn't it more likely that, many years later, the scribes of that illustrious Roman Emperor, who had a dream and then decided to change his people's religion, were responsible for them?
An epistle is a writing directed or sent to a person or group of people, usually an elegant and formal didactic letter.When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid? How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?
So which of these peasants were capable of writing such letters? Isn't it more likely that, many years later, the scribes of that illustrious Roman Emperor, who had a dream and then decided to change his people's religion, were responsible for them?
Each person will recall different details. Hence the different accounts of the nativity. However, Mat and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived afterwards in Nazareth. It's what we expect!
When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid? How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?
NS,
Not my area, but to be fair it's a fairly orthodox claim I think that the narratives were passed along orally for years or decades before being finally written down. Where those who propound this oral tradition fall apart is in also claiming that the people involved were somehow exempt from error, elaboration etc in each of their re-telings.
What's that got to do with johnjil's implication that it was more likely at some time it was made up from a dream by a scribe of an unnamed Roman Emperor?
NS,
I was responding to your reply to him ("When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid? How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?") in which you seemed to see all sorts of things that I didn't. Where does the "stupid" for example come from?
Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe. Your post just seems like a complete non sequitur to the question of the likelihood of this being a dream of some unnamed scribe of some unnamed Roman Empoeroy at some unspecified time.
NS,
It would be an irrelevance rather than a non sequitur (they’re different) and that’s because I wasn’t responding to jj ‘s post at all, but rather to your response to it. I was merely saying that a long oral tradition prior to stories being written down would be likely to embed all sorts of errors without requiring some of the various characteristics you think he implied (stupidity for example) but that I didn’t see.
He also incidentally framed his proposition as a question (“Isn’t it more likely that…”) rather than as a calculation of some kind.
Seems like both an irrelevance and a non sequitur me. Nothing I asked had anything to do with your reply. I've explained the stupid remark and you have just ignored that.
And 'isn't it more likely' is an implied calculation as well as a question.
NS,
No you didn't - nothing jj said implied stupidity, and your "Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe" doesn't support the claim of implied stupidity either - if the tradition was almost entirely oral (or for that matter if the original events weren't thought by those who saw them to be particularly interesting) then nothing jj said suggested that he thought those involved were stupid for not seeking out scribes.
But still framed as a question rather than as an assertion that would necessitate showing his workings.
You seem to be in full blown "pick an argument for the sake of it" mode here so I'll leave it there I think. Funnily enough I'm doing some tax work just now for an Italian client that entails putting various phrases from a pdf through Google Translate. Because it produces odd results, I'm doing the very thing I talked about earlier - blocking in by guessing at what it means to say ("records" rather than "screeds", "applicant" rather than "servant" etc).
Ok let’s say you are right here. All you have left of the story is that Jesus’ parents were Joseph and Mary (the virgin birth is also a common point), he was born in Bethlehem and ended up in Nazareth at some point.Glad we are on the same wavelength regarding the similarities and differences between the accounts. I was reading from one of the online commentaries the other day, and it showed that Matthew and Luke were not aware the other existed (but I don't remember more than that it was something to do with the Nativity accounts). If I can find it I'll let you know.
Apart from the virgin birth that is all quite believable but also ordinary. Unfortunately, we can’t be sure that they had independent sources especially as both were clearly aware of alleged prophecies saying the the messiah would be born in Bethlehem
What make, model and colour of car was Paul driving?Paul had a VW Polo. It didn't have very good acceleration.
Likewise for Ben's car?
Can't remember the quote was exactly but it was about philosophy in general the and it was just a statement by this person indicating, philosophy's discussing words.Eh?
I'm more or less comfortable with the O E D definitions of our English words, I don't see myself as as budding Bertrand Russell, nor anyone else that posts here, if they really were budding philosophers they'd probably take one look at this forum and that would be it.
Regards, ippy
I think the implications of what you are saying would need application on more than the foundation of Christianity otherwise it looks a bit biased.Practically every oral history has the same problem. The In Our Time programme on the Empire of Mali (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kgggv) discusses the problem in detail with respect to the Epic of Sundiata.
Apart from three or fourpence for a dance are there any actual comparable examples?
The point of the NT is or wicked genius of the NT depending on your point of view is a believing community as implicitly and explicitly mentioned in the epistles and a referential community in Jerusalem and between them the integrity of the account is maintained.
When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid? How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?
Firstly, NS, I didn't say all Christians were peasants, I said that those who Jesus had as followers when he was wondering around doing his magic, the Disciples, were ordinary workers of 2000 years ago.
If you went to that area only 200 years ago you would have found the common workers as uneducated as all other peasants around the world were. It's only 150 years ago in this country did the workers' kids start getting educated!
So anyone around who witnessed this so-called resurrection, would hardly have been in a position to write an account of it. In fact, at least 20 years went by before anyone did!
As for the unnamed emporor, look up Constantine's vision.
Glad we are on the same wavelength regarding the similarities and differences between the accounts. I was reading from one of the online commentaries the other day, and it showed that Matthew and Luke were not aware the other existed (but I don't remember more than that it was something to do with the Nativity accounts). If I can find it I'll let you know.They may well not have known each other but they both had a copy of Mark’s gospel and another document and if they didn’t know each other, the Nativities are easily explained as independent embellishments of another source.
So if all Christians weren't illiterate then there is no problem with epistles being written. Further given there is documentation of Christians existing before Constantine, and indeed the vision of Constantine is based on the success of Christianity, why would there be any problem of the epistles existing before that.
Yes, NS, all the Disciples had BA degrees and Christianity had been a world-wide religion for centuries before JS was born.
Silly me, I bow to your expertise.
I think someone making an irrelevant non sequitur about and then complaining about that being pointed out stating that the person they are replying to is picking an argument for the sake of it is in the sound of breaking glass.
Yes, NS, all the Disciples had BA degrees and Christianity had been a world-wide religion for centuries before JS was born.I have the equivalent of a BA but I was able to write long before I achieved that qualification.
Silly me, I bow to your expertise.
They may well not have known each other but they both had a copy of Mark’s gospel and another document and if they didn’t know each other, the Nativities are easily explained as independent embellishments of another source.
On the other hand, some people, like Mark Goodacre, argue that Luke knew Matthew’s gospel but threw out his nativity and replaced it.
Rather than they both had copies of Mark's gospelWhy? It's pretty much undisputed amongst honest scholars that Matthew and Luke both used Mark's gospel as the basis of their own writings. They more or less copied it verbatim.
what about comparing the words and deeds of Jesus with someone like David Attenborough giving talks on the natural world and three or four of his audience writing down what he said in their own words
There are so many differences between the versions of stories. For example Matthew and Mark both describe how Jesus calmed the storm. Mark adds key details that Matthew doesn't appear to have read, such as the cushion Jesus was sleeping on and the fact that he was in the stern
Re the nativities: don't you agree that Matthew focuses more on Joseph's experience and Luke focuses on Mary's, indicating different sources?I don't see how you can call this "focussing" since, apart from the bare bones of the names of the parents, virgin birth, birth in Bethlehem and eventual arrival back in Nazareth, the two stories are completely different. It's as though each author was given those four points and then made up a complete fiction around them.
Of course however I have encountered Jesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.
Since the way Jesus is described in the NT has so many different and contradictory facets, this claim is more than extraordinary. You keep using the singular with regard to the images of Jesus in the NT - the only way that this can be sustained is by using the ludicrous 'harmonisation' techniques of the fundamentalists, or by means of a personally biased form of cherry-picking.You can suspect what you will of course. I think you suffer from the belief that a belief is always obtained by a mere intellectual assent of a text from which one either carries on in it or steps back from it. That does not describe my encounter with Christ.
I suspect the latter, in that you were personally disposed to encounter the Jesus that suited you. I may be totally wrong, but I'm no novice in these matters of 'personal encounters'. And many sincere, but ultimately disillusioned Christians have written poignant accounts of their personal encounters with 'Jesus', but have finally realised that they were duped by the immense creative powers of their own minds.
You can suspect what you will of course. I think you suffer from the belief that a belief is always obtained by a mere intellectual assent of a text from which one either carries on in it or steps back from it. That does not describe my encounter with Christ.
How do you know your 'encounter' with the long dead Jesus was anything more than your imagination conjuring it up?I had several years living with my imagination and knew it more intimately than anyone else.
How do you know your 'encounter' with the long dead Jesus was anything more than your imagination conjuring it up?
Hi Floo,No. Mere intellectual assent applies to accepting the truth of the score of last years FA cup, that Dawkins wont be seen dead in XXX, these are things that we accept and assent to and that's it. It is an exercise in the abstract, it is a neutral fact that does not affect me at all.
He doesn’t. He’s been asked this countless times but always disappears rather even than attempt an answer. The schtick involves adding “mere” before “intellectual assent” (as if he’s thereby established that there’s a more reliable way of validating truths than the intellectual one)
No. Mere intellectual assent applies to accepting the truth of the score of last years FA cup, that Dawkins wont be seen dead in XXX, these are things that we accept and assent to and that's it. It is an exercise in the abstract, it is a neutral fact that does not affect me at all.
The encounter was more than it being an affective piece of information. It was an experience of existence of. That there is a God and that he works through Christ. That Jesus is at the door of one's life knocking. Not lives, not mankind's but knocking at one's door.
Your dogmatic agnosticism and factoid dependence doesn't come close Hillside.
Floo,I think you are trying to give the impression that I am writing off any intellectual effort I am not. What I am likening your position to is the man who knows he must eat and intimately knows the facts about digestion but won't actually open the door to the Ocado man because he has made the intellectual effort and that is sufficient.
Told you so. You can try it for yourself if you like (I've long since given up asking): ask him what method he uses to validate these remarkable claims if not for an intellectual one so as to eliminate the various alternative (but less thrilling) possible explanations for his "experience". You might also try asking him why anyone should take his explanations any more seriously they they (or he) should take the claims of others that are just as deeply held about their various "encounters" with other faith objects entirely (again I've long since given up expecting an answer to this of any kind).
Sadly, you'll find that he's the Violet Elizabeth Bott of apologetics: "It'th twoo I tell you - it'th twoo, it'th twoo, it'th twoo!" is the beginning and the end of it.
Jeremy,Perhaps the answer is that we can't. In which case, what basis do you have for arguing that it is all true?
Whether or not either of Mark and Matthew copied the other, how do we distinguish between fictitious embellishments and eyewitness testimony when we find additional information given by one that the other doesn't include?
I think you are trying to give the impression that I am writing off any intellectual effort I am not. What I am likening your position to is the man who knows he must eat and intimately knows the facts about digestion but won't actually open the door to the Ocado man because he has made the intellectual effort and that is sufficient.
My Christianity is agreed, there are other christians. Most people who poo poo this have never and are not prepared to travel the routes, and there is an intellectual basis in standard reasoning. The philosophicaleffort is not neglected in theism and christianity whereas in New Atheism it has been arbitrarily dismissed in favour of scientism and argumentum ad ridiculum
In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?
Would this be the Benson that died in 1821? If so, I'm wondering what historians have turned up since then.
Spud your posts are not very convincing.They are floo, it's just that you're not very easy to convince!
They are floo, it's just that you're not very easy to convince!i find your posts totally convincing Spud . In fact I rejoice even more in ever increasing opportunities to ridicule you . Thank you .
i find your posts totally convincing Spud . In fact I rejoice even more in ever increasing opportunities to ridicule you . Thank you .That's fine. Once the weather improves I'll be out and about so make the most of the opportunity.
"The problem can be resolved if the census was not for taxation purposes but was instead a census of allegiance to Caesar Augustus (some translations of Luke 2:1-5 refer to taxation, but this is not implied in the Greek text). The fifth century historian Orosius (Adv. Pag. VI.22.7, VII.2.16) states '[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. . . . In this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and through the participation in the census, were made part of one society'. Josephus (Ant. XVII, ii, 4) appears to refer to the same event: 'when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their goodwill to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand.' From the context of these words in Josephus, this census of allegiance to Caesar Augustus occurred about one year before the death of Herod the Great."
(My emphasis)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html
If you want to read the original quote from Josephus it is here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-17.html
My Christianity is agreed, there are other christians. Most people who poo poo this have never and are not prepared to travel the routes, and there is an intellectual basis in standard reasoning. The philosophicaleffort is not neglected in theism and christianity whereas in New Atheism it has been arbitrarily dismissed in favour of scientism and argumentum ad ridiculum
You can suspect what you will of course. I think you suffer from the belief that a belief is always obtained by a mere intellectual assent of a text from which one either carries on in it or steps back from it. That does not describe my encounter with Christ.
Your Christianity is one of many kinds. Many people (not most) have travelled the routes and found them wanting - even if at some point they claimed that they'd 'encountered' Jesus. The standard response to this amounts to "they weren't doing it right" or their 'encounter' wasn't the true Jesus (the TBs' encounters being in every better and deeper).
In any case, this 'personal relationship with Jesus' is really the preserve of evangelical Christianity, and came on the scene rather late in the day. I don't think one of your favourite Christian scholars, Diarmaid McCulloch, has ever made such claims about his own experience.
However, I came to realise that there had to be some consistency in the original texts - which are the basis for any such belief in the first place.
"The problem can be resolved if the census was not for taxation purposesThe problem can also be resolved if Luke made up the census or at least fictionalised it. Given the lack of supporting evidence for Luke's census, I think it is a better solution.
The fifth century historian Orosius (Adv. Pag. VI.22.7, VII.2.16) states '[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was bornBut his source is the Gospel of Luke. You can't argue that Luke was correct on the basis of some text explaining it agrees with it.
Josephus (Ant. XVII, ii, 4) appears to refer to the same event: 'when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their goodwill to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand.' From the context of these words in Josephus, this census of allegiance to Caesar Augustus occurred about one year before the death of Herod the Great."So not Luke's census, unless he got the date wrong.
So not Luke's census, unless he got the date wrong.I quoted the whole lot but was mostly interested in the bit in bold, which I don't yet have any explanation of, ie to what was Josephus referring, if not a registration of the Jews for the purpose of pledging allegiance to Augustus at the time of Herod the great?
I quoted the whole lot but was mostly interested in the bit in bold, which I don't yet have any explanation of, ie to what was Josephus referring, if not a registration of the Jews for Augustus at the time of Herod the great?
If this is the case then Luke has associated it with or possibly conflated it with the AD 6 census. But it means that he hasn't made up the reason for Joseph and Mary's journey.
I quoted the whole lot but was mostly interested in the bit in bold, which I don't yet have any explanation of, ie to what was Josephus referring, if not a registration of the Jews for the purpose of pledging allegiance to Augustus at the time of Herod the great?
If this is the case then Luke has associated it with or possibly conflated it with the AD 6 census. But it means that he hasn't made up the reason for Joseph and Mary's journey.
The more you post the less convincing you are. We get it that you want everything written in the Bible to support your take on faith, but that is all it is, a belief.Perhaps you can suggest why Josephus mentioned the Jews swearing an oath of allegiance to Caesar?
Perhaps you can suggest why Josephus mentioned the Jews swearing an oath of allegiance to Caesar?
I have no idea why Josephus wrote as he did, or if he actually wrote it at all. Apparently there has been some doubt about that guy.
Titus Flavius Josephus was a Romanised Jew who few have doubted actually lived, we even know what he looked like.I think you are nearly 30 years out. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews was written in about 94 CE, not 69.
Josephus wrote in 69 CE of the death of James, the brother of Jesus. Why would he make up something like that?
I think you are nearly 30 years out. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews was written in about 94 CE, not 69.
But beyond that, I'm not sure what point you are making.
Floo seemed to be implying that there is a school of thought that Josephus did not exist.
Floo seemed to be implying that there is a school of thought that Josephus did not exist.
He existed, but what he was supposed to have written was apparently open to question.
Humph,
But your, "Why would he make up something like that?" is addressing a different issue. Whether he made it up or not doesn't matter much - either way, it tells you nothing about claims of Jesus the man/god rather than just the man.
He existed, but what he was supposed to have written was apparently open to question.
Hi again Dicky,
I find this curious. Person A has an experience, reaches for the holy texts that happen to be most proximate to him and decides that they must provide the explanation for it. Person B has just as profound an experience, reaches for the holy texts that happen to be most proximate to him and decides that they must provide the explanation for it. Person C etc...
Rarely though does it occur to any of them that's it's an astonishing co-incidence that the very texts most available at the time and place they happen to live must be the right ones, whereas those most available to people in different times and places cannot be. Doubtless had Vladdo been a 17th c Polynesian islander for example he'd be telling us just as earnestly that he'd had an experience of the local volcano god (while relying to boot on equally desperate arguments and evasions to support him).
Sorry, but I don't get near a computer very often these days.
It is as you say (including your references to crude ad populum arguments in your previous post).
The cultural background of various 'mystical' experiences seems to be of prime importance. There are various claims made by evangelical groups that such and such an individual in the Amazon jungle etc. had an experience of Jesus before any missionaries got there, and only realised that this was an experience of the Christian god after the missionaries arrived and explained it to him/her. However, the evidence for this seems to be purely anecdotal, and filtered through the extremely biased narrative procedures of the evangelical Christians themselves. Even so, such experiences seem to be few, and one would have thought that if the Christian god were the true creator of all existence, he might have found a more consistent and fool-proof method of communicating his eternal truths to the whole of humanity than these hit and miss methods.
As you imply, the experiences of the divine seem to involve a lot of cherry-picking when it comes to finding correlations with the holy texts themselves. People seem to find the Jesus their they want to find, and pass lightly over the texts that don't agree with their revelations. You-know-who seems not to have much time for the purely Jewish Jesus revealed there, and passes straight on to the divine Jesus of the later 'high Christology' of John. Old freeminer seemed to claim an experience that convinced him that the whole of the Bible in every particular was true - though what mental gymnastics he had to perform to achieve this don't bear thinking about.
And of course, as William James' 'Varieties of Religious Experience' has shown, the nature of the very experiences themselves vary enormously in any case.
Floo seemed to be implying that there is a school of thought that Josephus did not exist.I don't think that is what she was implying at all.
I don't think that is what she was implying at all.
I think she was implying that there are question marks about the authenticity of Josephus' writing as we see it now. And that is correct. There is a lot of scholarly opinion indicating that elements of his writing, and in particular the writing about Jesus, may have been altered by later hands. There is a broad consensus that the wording in Testimonium Flavianum appearing to corroborate the resurrection isn't authentic and was added much later, probably as late as 4thC.
Of course there are intelligent and nuanced Christians too (Wiggs talks occasionally about the signs and symbols of “God” for example, though I don’t really know what this means, and nor will he tell us) whose theology I’d genuinely like to hear about it, but most of the stuff here seems pretty crude to me.
I think it fair to say that a majority opinion would be that the reference in Josephus' writing to Jesus being the Messiah have been largely amended by later Christian writers, since a Romanised Jew was unlikely to have been a Christian. The references to James "The Just" however, are usually considered to be genuine since medieval Christians did their best to expunge any idea that Jesus was a Jew, and that they would be highly unlikely to have introduced such a reference. Hope that clears it up.True - see my earlier comment.
blue wrote:
Hi blue, it's unlikely that I'll be telling you any time soon, as I haven't counted myself a Christian for several years now. It's a long story ...
Hi again Dicky,Cod Christianity
No worries, and thanks for the detailed reply. Yes, culturally-derived causal explanations seem to be essential to faith beliefs. You simply don’t find the Amazonian tribesman (or whoever) who independently has the Christian narrative, and nor for that matter do you find the Christian who’s independently been contacted by the gods of the Amazonian. Funny that.
I hadn’t heard of that, “an individual in the Amazon jungle etc. had an experience of Jesus before any missionaries got there, and only realised that this was an experience of the Christian god after the missionaries arrived and explained it to him/her” before but it’s just priceless. Such arrogance (does it work the other way around too?), such idiocy (“we gave him the right answer, then he agreed with us”). Good grief!
It’d be interesting if a Christian here could tell us whether the remarkable co-incidence of the narrative most proximate to when and where he happens to live also being the right one (and the countless others being the wrong ones therefore) even gives her or him pause, but I don’t suppose any will. “He-whose-behaviour-cannot-be-named” certainly won’t, as I know from long experience.
As for cherry-picking, well yes. Essentially people get the gods they most resemble. Sweet little old lady? Jesus meek and mild all the way; nasty piece of work? That’ll be the vengeful god who “hates faggots” etc. I wonder if there’s a word for that, or for that matter whether anyone has ever believed in a god whose character is fundamentally different from his own?
Of course there are intelligent and nuanced Christians too (Wiggs talks occasionally about the signs and symbols of “God” for example, though I don’t really know what this means, and nor will he tell us) whose theology I’d genuinely like to hear about it, but most of the stuff here seems pretty crude to me.
Hi blue, it's unlikely that I'll be telling you any time soon, as I haven't counted myself a Christian for several years now. It's a long story ...
I think it fair to say that a majority opinion would be that the reference in Josephus' writing to Jesus being the Messiah have been largely amended by later Christian writers, since a Romanised Jew was unlikely to have been a Christian. The references to James "The Just" however, are usually considered to be genuine since medieval Christians did their best to expunge any idea that Jesus was a Jew, and that they would be highly unlikely to have introduced such a reference. Hope that clears it up.The other point to note here is the timing.
The other point to note here is the timing.
Josephus isn't contemporary with Jesus at all, nor really is his writing contemporary with James. He wasn't even born when Jesus is believed to have died. What writing we have was written some 30 years after James' death and some 60 years' after Jesus' death.
So let's put that in context. It would be like someone born in 1958 writing today about the death of Roy Kinear (in 1988) and in passing mentioning that he had a brother (who had died in 1954) without giving any more information about this brother.
And that there was no other independent reports about the life and death of this brother.
Would you really find that 'evidence' somehow compelling. Hmm - I suspect not.
You may find it suspect. I do not. I never met my great granduncle, but I have no reason to doubt that he existed.Who is claiming that Josephus didn't exist. Nor Jesus for that matter.
You may find it suspect. I do not. I never met my great granduncle, but I have no reason to doubt that he existed.
I never claimed Josephus didn't exist, I just said that we can't assume that he wrote what was attributed to him.Nor, indeed, that even the things he wrote that can confidently be attributed to him are actually true - particularly as he was writing decades after the events he mentions.
I have no idea why Josephus wrote as he did, or if he actually wrote it at all. Apparently there has been some doubt about that guy.
And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision; and what he wrote many years before they came to pass....So that by the forementioned predictions of Daniel those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs.http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-10.html
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
How do you work that out?Man believes that Daniel 7-12 is predictive prophecy.
Man believes that Daniel 7-12 is predictive prophecy.
Same man writes that the Messiah rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy.
Man believes that Daniel 7-12 is predictive prophecy.
Same man writes that the Messiah rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy.
So are you saying that it is likely that Josephus wrote the bit about the resurrection or that this indicates that the resurrection happened?That it's likely he wrote the bit about it.
That it's likely he wrote the bit about it.
An interesting statement from Josephus Antiquities book 10:http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-10.htmlOne of the main reasons that people believe that statement to be forged is because Josephus was not a Christian. If Josephus had believed the things in that statement to have really happened, how could he not be a Christian?
The above quote (if authentic) shows that Josephus believed in predictive prophecy; so we can say that his statement (below) about Jesus' resurrection, could be genuine:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
One of the main reasons that people believe that statement to be forged is because Josephus was not a Christian. If Josephus had believed the things in that statement to have really happened, how could he not be a Christian?He could have been using sarcasm. As in look at what these geezers believed.
He could have been using sarcasm. As in look at what these geezers believed.
One of the main reasons that people believe that statement to be forged is because Josephus was not a Christian. If Josephus had believed the things in that statement to have really happened, how could he not be a Christian?My guess is that a lot of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah didn't identify as Christians, because that would have meant persecution. Or Josephus may not have understood the Christian message about why Jesus died.
My guess is that a lot of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah didn't identify as Christians, because that would have meant persecution. Or Josephus may not have understood the Christian message about why Jesus died.
My guessCome back when you have got some evidence.
is that a lot of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah didn't identify as Christians, because that would have meant persecution. Or Josephus may not have understood the Christian message about why Jesus died.Josephus was not a Christian as far as any source we have says.
Come back when you have got some evidence.
Josephus was not a Christian as far as any source we have says.
No Christian before about the fourth century references this passage in Josephus.
The passage appears in a totally incongruous context suggesting it was an insertion.
The reasonable conclusion is that it is forged
By this time, a lot of Jews (Pharisees in particular) believed there was an afterlife, and would have been well aware of the relevant text in Daniel. They probably would not have wanted to take the risk of a nasty divine judgment if they actually did believe Jesus was the Lord's Anointed and did not publically acknowledge this (I believe there's a scripture about such attitudes as well). Feared persecution, but shrugged off the possibility of divine judgment?
As for the "Christian message about why Jesus died" - well that was still being hotly debated.
That's fine. I am not well informed about the arguments for and against whether it was forged, but I see that it was thought to be so by most early Christian scholars. That doesn't mean that Luke wasn't historically accurate though (see #720).
Regarding Josephus' understanding of Christianity: I just came across the argument that because he said the reason for the city's destruction in AD70 was the martyrdom of James, therefore he couldn't have believed Jesus was the messiah, since if he did, he would have given Jesus' martyrdom, not James', as the reason for AD70.
Well the counter argument is that the church is symbolized as Christ's bride (see Revelation 21:2), and the events of AD70 can be understood to be a result not just of Jesus' martyrdom at the hands of the Jews (via the Romans), but of the Jewish persecution of his bride, the apostolic church. Jesus forgave them for putting him to death, but when they tried to kill his bride he took vengeance for that.
Which means that not only did Josephus believe that God could predict the future (see his comments on Daniel's prophecies) but that he understood something about the Church as the new Israel.
Since Josephus does not say the destruction of Jerusalem was caused by James’ martyrdom, the whole point is moot.You're right, although according to Origen (or was it Eusebius) he did. I didn't check the facts.
Having said that, Jo did say this in antiquities book 18: "Nay the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down". If you look at the context of this quote it's clear that the murder of James is among the final injustices he is thinking of, which he records before ending book 20.
What's the point if you're unable to establish the veracity of the book in the first place, this is just like having an argument about a Harry Potter novel, it's certainly no better.
Regards ippy.
What's the point if you're unable to establish the veracity of the book in the first place, this is just like having an argument about a Harry Potter novel, it's certainly no better.
Regards ippy.
You have realised the discussion here is about the historical writings of Josephus (not the Bible) - which you will of course have read, in order to give some substance to your claim. How do you rate the veracity of various historical classics, by the way? How about Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall', Tacitus' Agricola and Germania, or Herodotus? Are they all on a level with Harry Potter?
As Jeremy wrote in #731 "He was trying to write a serious history not a post on a message board."
I take it you have some verifiable evidence that will back up the writings of Josephus, if not, well?
ippy
So you take a position of absolute scepticism on all writing of history, then? Where does your scepticism end? And what methods do you employ to verify your facts? Are you even sure you actually exist yourself?
I was mostly taking exception to your equating genuine historical enquiry with the Harry Potter novels. If you have some unassailable methods of verifying historical truth, please let us know.
So you take a position of absolute scepticism on all writing of history, then? Where does your scepticism end? And what methods do you employ to verify your facts? Are you even sure you actually exist yourself?
I was mostly taking exception to your equating genuine historical enquiry with the Harry Potter novels. If you have some unassailable methods of verifying historical truth, please let us know.
Much of the Bible has no historical accuracy, it is make believe just like the Harry Potter novels.
Which bits do you think have no historical accuracy?It's easier to ask which bits are historically accurate. That mostly comes down to the history from the Two Kingdom period. Even that bit is heavily biased.
Which bits do you think have no historical accuracy?
Anything which lacks credibility, as a lot of the Bible appear to do.
How do you judge what is credible?
I use my singe brain cell!
Seriously, how do you judge whether something is credible or not when it comes to events in the Bible?
Oh for heaven's sake stop being so pedantic. ::) How many truly dead people do you know have survived being buried and come back to life three days later, let alone someone who was subjected to crucifixion?
It is nothing to do with being pedantic. Your argument is flawed and misses the point about Miracles. You keep repeating it, i point this out, you don't respond, then post the same flawed argument elsewhere. Your point about events in the Bible not being credible misses the point that the Bible is not a record of everyday events but of Miraculous ones. it is not being pedantic to pint out a fundamental point about your flawed arguments.
And is there any verifiable evidence these so called 'miracles' actually occurred?
That is a different argument.
We can't even give a guarantee about the accuracy of the historical actions of our kings of 500 yrs ago, some hopes as you must be aware, so much for your research into almost two thousand years old history, shaky at best.
Regards ippy
Oh for heaven's sake stop being so pedantic. ::) How many truly dead people do you know have survived being buried and come back to life three days later, let alone someone who was subjected to crucifixion?
...... Your point about events in the Bible not being credible misses the point that the Bible is not a record of everyday events but of Miraculous ones....
Much of the Bible has no historical accuracy, it is make believe just like the Harry Potter novels.
I would have thought that those were the aspects of the Bible that Floo was taking exception to.
However, the Bible is many things, not all of which are miraculous. Some are poetic, some moralistic, some purport to be historical. There's little evidence for the supposed historical events in the Pentateuch, and many of those are interspersed with fantastical happenings. In fact there's not much that has any corroborative evidence till the Babylonian exile.
We actually have a historically verified date - 586 BC.
Which is why I asked which parts she felt not to be historically accurate. She referred to events which were nit credible, and when pressed on this raised the resurrection, so sadly I think your first line is incorrect.
I really don't get what you are on about?
I realise that she avoided your question. I still take issue with your line that the Bible "is not a record of everyday events, but of miraculous ones". Sometimes it's that - but a lot of the time it's not.
The second is a flawed argument which misses the point about the nature of miracles.
I don't disagree, but the main purpose of the Bible is to record the miraculous not the everyday. I don't think LR avoided the question, I think she was referring to the miraculous events.
But what is the nature of miracles?
There have of course been a number of Christian apologists who tried a metaphorical approach. Typical of this is David Friedrich Strauss, who interpreted the feeding of the 5000 as an image of Jesus through his teaching providing 'spiritual' food for those who were listening to him.
I refer to the definition of miracles as posted earlier where they are defined as extraordinary events not explicable by natural or scientific rules. Hence saying things like that don't normally happen is a flawed argument.
Clearly.
To say there is no evidence for the miracles in the Bible is different than saying the miracles aren't credible because such things don't normally happen. The first is a factual statement, presuming you do not consider the Gospels as evidence. The second is a flawed argument which misses the point about the nature of miracles.
Seriously, how do you judge whether something is credible or not when it comes to events in the Bible?Look at the archaeology. Look at the records from other civilisations. Look at the internal evidence from the text.
Why is it a flawed argument to argue against miracles, anymore than it is flawed to argue against the existence of leprechauns?
Look at the archaeology. Look at the records from other civilisations. Look at the internal evidence from the text.
Agreed.
Well, I'm glad that three of us can agree on something.
Me too.
And me.
So the evidence that I listed tells has that nothing in the Bible can be supported prior to the Two Kingdom period i.e. that everything from Adam to Solomon is likely fictional.
We three all agree on that, right?
I'd have to look at the archaeology, tge records from other civilisations and the internal eidence fromnthe text to have an opinion. I haven't in any detail.There's no evidence that anything in Genesis happened. In fact, what we know of the history of the Earth flatly contradicts the creation story and the flood story. There's no evidence of the patriarchs or Joseph.
I don't disagree, but the main purpose of the Bible is to record the miraculous not the everyday. I don't think LR avoided the question, I think she was referring to the miraculous events.More specifically, it's to record the creator's intervention in history.
More specifically, it's to record the creator's intervention in history.
More specifically, it's to record the creator's intervention in history.
You left out the word 'claimed' in your post: twice in fact, since it fits snugly between 'the' and 'creator's', and again between 'creator's' and 'intervention'.Am I obliged to put that in, Gordon?
It's also his revelation of himself.The Bible was written by people based on what they believed God's revelation was.
It's also his revelation of himself.
Am I obliged to put that in, Gordon?
It's also his revelation of himself.
That's the claim, so where is the evidence.If I've understood Maeght's recent posts correctly, he was saying that various peoples' reports of their encounters with God are to be treated as evidence. If that's no what he was saying, I apologize. I think the basis on which it can be treated as evidence is that if someone, for example Job, tells me he received a particular word from God in answer to a prayer, it is possible for me to pray and test the hypothesis that if a person prays God will answer.
If I've understood Maeght's recent posts correctly, he was saying that various peoples' reports of their encounters with God are to be treated as evidence. If that's no what he was saying, I apologize. I think the basis on which it can be treated as evidence is that if someone, for example Job, tells me he received a particular word from God in answer to a prayer, it is possible for me to pray and test the hypothesis that if a person prays God will answer.
If I've understood Maeght's recent posts correctly, he was saying that various peoples' reports of their encounters with God are to be treated as evidence. If that's no what he was saying, I apologize. I think the basis on which it can be treated as evidence is that if someone, for example Job, tells me he received a particular word from God in answer to a prayer, it is possible for me to pray and test the hypothesis that if a person prays God will answer.
If I've understood Maeght's recent posts correctly, he was saying that various peoples' reports of their encounters with God are to be treated as evidence. If that's no what he was saying, I apologize. I think the basis on which it can be treated as evidence is that if someone, for example Job, tells me he received a particular word from God in answer to a prayer, it is possible for me to pray and test the hypothesis that if a person prays God will answer.
Yes, as long as I can do the same, along with anybody else, and we all get the same result.
For example, I can write down a 10 digit number, and you pray and ask god to tell you the number.
That would be excellent.
Out of interest, how would you know, even if you thought your supposed god had answered how would you know for certain it was this god you often speak about?
Regards ippy
Yes, as long as I can do the same, along with anybody else, and we all get the same result.
For example, I can write down a 10 digit number, and you pray and ask god to tell you the number.
That would be excellent.
You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.
If you write it here on this thread, I'll give it a try.
You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.
If you write it here on this thread, I'll give it a try.
If I write it on here you will see the numbers!
I have the numbers written, just ask god what they are.
Maybe you should send one of us a PM containing the numbers, and then we can reveal if Spud has had a revelation or not! ;D
I sent the numbers to you.
If god can tell him the numbers, that will be interesting.
You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.
If you write it here on this thread, I'll give it a try.
You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.
If you write it here on this thread, I'll give it a try.
Balls lightening I suppose? Come on Spud, you must know better than that.
Regards ippy
Maybe god will send a few balls of lightning in his direction for being so silly. ;DThor only does that when He is angry.
Thor only does that when He is angry.So when he gets angry it's Thor balls?
How long does god need to get the numbers to you.God doesn't play silly games for the benefit of silly people.
I have them written on my page now, so he should be able to see them?
God doesn't play silly games for the benefit of silly people.
God doesn't play silly games for the benefit of silly people.
And your evidence for that statement is?That it doesn't happen, and the nature of God.
That it doesn't happen, and the nature of God.
Oh, just go away.
I admit I am fed up trying to have a mature argument with silly, immature idiots.
How long does god need to get the numbers to you.
I have them written on my page now, so he should be able to see them?
There are several points to make. Firstly, do you know that he doesn't exist and can't see them? If you don't know that, then you must be open to the possibility that he does exist and can tell me them if he wants to.
I did ask him and he said, "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". We'll see if that's correct.
Then he said, even if he shows me the numbers, you BR might believe for a while but then would demand that he does it again for you to continue believing. According to the Bible, people had been shown many proofs of Jesus' divinity, but still demanded a sign from heaven to prove that he was the Christ. What you asked sounds a bit like that.
He also gave me more evidence that the gospels are reliable, relating to this thread (obviously he wants us to stay on topic): Mark 15:21 where Mark gives the name of the sons of the guy who carried the cross for Jesus. This can only imply that those two men were still alive at the time of writing and could bear witness. Likewise, why else would Luke give the name of one of the two who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus than because he wants us to know that he is reporting historical fact?
Lastly how can we expect God to answer in the way we want? Someone once had a rant at God about an in-law, but got a sharp rebuke in which God showed him where the debit card he had been looking for was, then said, leave your in-law to me. So God's answers are not what we expect, and humbling. And he always answers.
Have a good day.
Do you think abandoning sneery sarcasm and acting like an adult ever works?
There are several points to make. Firstly, do you know that he doesn't exist and can't see them? If you don't know that, then you must be open to the possibility that he does exist and can tell me them if he wants to.
I did ask him and he said, "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". We'll see if that's correct.
Then he said, even if he shows me the numbers, you BR might believe for a while but then would demand that he does it again for you to continue believing. According to the Bible, people had been shown many proofs of Jesus' divinity, but still demanded a sign from heaven to prove that he was the Christ. What you asked sounds a bit like that.
He also gave me more evidence that the gospels are reliable, relating to this thread (obviously he wants us to stay on topic): Mark 15:21 where Mark gives the name of the sons of the guy who carried the cross for Jesus. This can only imply that those two men were still alive at the time of writing and could bear witness. Likewise, why else would Luke give the name of one of the two who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus than because he wants us to know that he is reporting historical fact?
Lastly how can we expect God to answer in the way we want? Someone once had a rant at God about an in-law, but got a sharp rebuke in which God showed him where the debit card he had been looking for was, then said, leave your in-law to me. So God's answers are not what we expect, and humbling. And he always answers.
Have a good day.
On the subject of numbers, here's a little conumdrum for you, courtesy of my old mate Ludo Wittgenstein: How many single-figure numbers are there below?
3494674376
"10" and "5" are both correct!
OK, as you were.
Why is this remotely relevant?
I wrote the numbers, which god must know, and also must be capable of giving that information to someone else.
So, lets see it happen.
Don't hold your breath. I find it really hard to believe that Spud would really ask his version of god for the numbers and expect an answer. ::)
Why is this remotely relevant?It isn't, which is why I wrote "as you were" after it. It was just a little light diversion.
I wrote the numbers, which god must know, and also must be capable of giving that information to someone else.
So, lets see it happen.
It isn't, which is why I wrote "as you were" after it. It was just a little light diversion.
You surely can't seriously think your numbers thing proves anything.
That it doesn't happen, and the nature of God.
There are several points to make. Firstly, do you know that he doesn't exist and can't see them? If you don't know that, then you must be open to the possibility that he does exist and can tell me them if he wants to.
I did ask him and he said, "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". We'll see if that's correct.
Then he said, even if he shows me the numbers, you BR might believe for a while but then would demand that he does it again for you to continue believing.
Lastly how can we expect God to answer in the way we want? Someone once had a rant at God about an in-law, but got a sharp rebuke in which God showed him where the debit card he had been looking for was, then said, leave your in-law to me. So God's answers are not what we expect, and humbling. And he always answers.
It's staggering, deeply sad, self-deceptive nonsense.
There's no evidence that anything in Genesis happened. In fact, what we know of the history of the Earth flatly contradicts the creation story and the flood story. There's no evidence of the patriarchs or Joseph.
Exodus is a bust. There's no evidence of a large Hebrew population in Egypt, Moses, the flight from Egypt or the wandering in the desert for forty years.
There's no evidence that Joshua conquered Canaan. In fact the archaeology suggests the Hebrews were indigenous inhabitants of the region.
The alleged Davidic empire is mentioned nowhere except in the Bible. The only reference to it is a tablet that says somebody wiped out the Houser of David. Solomon is equally illusory.
It's only when we get to the two kingdom period that we have solid history.
The date of the fall of Jerusalem was uncertain until 1956, when D.J. Wiseman deciphered (Babylonian) tablet B.M. 21946. This translation made possible to calculate and finally establish 597 B.C. as the year of the first occupation of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, who established Zedekiah.We also have the Prism of Sennacherib from about this period, which also corroborates a few details from the Book of Kings to some extent.
the temple was burnt four hundred and seventy years, six months, and ten days after it was builtJosephus, Antiquities.
In a nutshell, and I do mean nuts!
Your haven't provided the evidence to support that statement.How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.
The thing is that this "god always answers prayers but not always in the way you expect" is one of the best arguments for memetic evolution I know of. I mean, if you were actually designing a belief system that set out to convince people that a non-existent god actually answered prayer, you couldn't do a better job. You don't need anybody to to fake answers, you just distort people's thinking enough that they'll literally regard anything at all as the answer. It's Orgel's Second Rule for memetics.
How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.
How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.
How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.
I sent the numbers to you.And what would be demonstrated BeRational?
If god can tell him the numbers, that will be interesting.
And what would be demonstrated BeRational?
If Spud were to give you the exact numbers, you would have no excuse for not believing. Something tells me however that you would find an excuse, e.g. why did God answer Spud's prayer but not the prayers of someone dying of hunger in Africa.
You guys want to test aspects of religious beliefs as if they are in a laboratory, but you *still* don't know exactly what it is you are really looking for and what would convince you. Why don't you admit that your mind is already made up and stop wasting people's time?
So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.
Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.
Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.
So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.
Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.
How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.
If god is around, why does it hide away from humanity?In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love. So your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?
In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love. So your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?Especially if you can feel it in your fingers, and feel it in your toes.
In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love. So your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?
Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.
So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.
Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.
Surly that is the point of asking? I don't know of anybody posting here who claims to know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god.
So, your god apparently doesn't know that 10 isn't a digit...
Well, if your god wasn't so effectivly hidden in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem. Why does your god hide?
So what you're basically saying is that when you pray, whatever happens will be interpreted by you as the answer. So, for example, if you pray for somebody to get better, even if they get worse and end up dying, you will still assume that that is the answer and is 'the right' thing to happen - just not the answer you expected or wanted.
It's staggering, deeply sad, self-deceptive nonsense.
I can only tell you that in my experience he does speak and work in a way that is clearly supernatural. No it's not "whatever happens is him answering". It's probably better described as me breaking into reality, where I stop functioning just as an animal and become aware of his presence. In reality, he is present all the time, but we go about our lives as though he doesn't exist. When I talk about him breaking into our space and time what I really mean is that I momentarily break into the reality of his presence. His answer to a prayer is just him reaffirming to me that he is there. As for him being hidden, no-one can see God's face and live. But we can see his arm, for example, when he "works salvation" for us, in other words, he speaks or acts in a way that helps me but glorifies not me but him. (Someone gave a good example of a child hiding from its parent behind a lamp post. He/she thinks he is hidden but his Mum can see his arms poking out. Likewise, some people think God is hidden, but he's hidden in such a way that we can know he's there because he's at work)
That is the sort of religious speak which goes right over my head. No idea what any of that actually means.Basically it's sayin he's there but we run around without being aware of it. When you pray (and listen for his answer) you're properly in the real world.
I can only tell you that in my experience he does speak and work in a way that is clearly supernatural. No it's not "whatever happens is him answering". It's probably better described as me breaking into reality, where I stop functioning just as an animal and become aware of his presence. In reality, he is present all the time, but we go about our lives as though he doesn't exist. When I talk about him breaking into our space and time what I really mean is that I momentarily break into the reality of his presence. His answer to a prayer is just him reaffirming to me that he is there.
Likewise, God is hidden, but he's hidden in such a way that we can know he's there because he's at work in the world)
Basically it's sayin he's there but we run around without being aware of it. When you pray (and listen for his answer) you're properly in the real world.
You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.God electrocutes people?
The numbers are wrong, and the rest is just waffle as you knew the numbers would be wrong.I'm quite relieved the numbers were wrong. I'd have Gordon and Nearly Sane on my back asking me to explain how God hacked LR's account.
Did you get those numbers from god, or will he not speak to you about this?
It isn't, which is why I wrote "as you were" after it. It was just a little light diversion.Spud said God would tell him the numbers. This was a test to see if Spud was correct.
You surely can't seriously think your numbers thing proves anything.
I'm quite relieved the numbers were wrong. I'd have Gordon and Nearly Sane on my back asking me to explain how God hacked LR's account.
Spud said God would tell him the numbers. This was a test to see if Spud was correct.I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer, not that God would do whatever miracle is requested of him!
I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer...
I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer, not that God would do whatever miracle is requested of him!
Thanks. Why would that be the real world?Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.
Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.
Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.
You have made an assumption, without evidence to support it! Humans provide the food we eat, NOT god!
So have you made an assumption (that matter and life arose by chance) when common sense tells us that matter cannot spontaneously come into being by itself. So actually we need special revelation from God to confirm that he exists, which we expect through common sense.Common sense tells me God can't come into existence by itself.
Common sense tells me God can't come into existence by itself.
So have you made an assumption (that matter and life arose by chance) when common sense tells us that matter cannot spontaneously come into being by itself. So actually we need special revelation from God to confirm that he exists, which we expect through common sense.
One of the most foolish arguments for a god that there is. Observe that we don't know why the universe exists, so insist it needs a god to explain it and then completely ignore the exactly equivalent problem of why this god just happens to exist.
Totally daft.
Which is exactly what ancient people did, to create the idea of God or gods to give an explanation for what is unknown, in my view.No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.
No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinism to explain origins.[/b][/i][/u]
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?" The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.
No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinism to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?"
No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life.
It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation.
That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?"
The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.
No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?" The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.
You have made an assumption, without evidence to support it! Humans provide the food we eat, NOT god!Humans grow and prepare it, but who gave us the sun and clouds to make things grow? You may say they are the result of billions of years of physical and chemical processes, which is fine. But if all the ingredients of a meal are served hot and cooked al dente it implies that someone put each of them in the oven or in the pot just at the right time. The same with the cosmos: it supports life, indeed we can say even the sun is in the best location in our galaxy for supporting life. That is either a massive coincidence or it was intended to be that way. So my point was that if it looks like it was designed to support life, then there seems to be nothing against the idea that the designer could reveal himself, as Christians believe he has.
The huge majority of the universe doesn't support life of course.Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.
Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.
Humans grow and prepare it, but who gave us the sun and clouds to make things grow? You may say they are the result of billions of years of physical and chemical processes, which is fine. But if all the ingredients of a meal are served hot and cooked al dente it implies that someone put each of them in the oven or in the pot just at the right time. The same with the cosmos: it supports life, indeed we can say even the sun is in the best location in our galaxy for supporting life. That is either a massive coincidence or it was intended to be that way. So my point was that if it looks like it was designed to support life, then there seems to be nothing against the idea that the designer could reveal himself, as Christians believe he has.
Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.
Even if there was some sort of intelligent designer, there is no evidence the Biblical god is it.What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.
Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.
What the hell is that supposed to mean and in what way is it relevant to your previous claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" despite the fact that the vast majority of it does no such thing?It means that the vastly intricate conditions required for life to begin (assuming a lightning-striking-chemical-soup origin of life) may not have been possible in a universe that was any different to the one that now exists.
It means that the vastly intricate conditions required for life to begin (assuming a lightning-striking-chemical-soup origin of life) may not have been possible in a universe that was any different to the one that now exists.
What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.With Julius Caesar we have testimony from multiple independent contemporary known sources, including some of Caesar's enemies. There are also statues and coins from his time.
What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.
What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.
Where to begin...Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.
- Why didn't you say that, then?
- Are you seriously claiming that your god had to create a universe of at least 93 billion light-years across and nearly 14 billion years old, just to make a tiny speck of cosmic dust orbiting one of its ~1020 stars, suitable for life?
- What on earth has the "lightning-striking-chemical-soup" got to do with it if it's your god waving its magic wand anyway?
Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.
We would still want to know what was beyond it. We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out. We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or small.
Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.
We would still want to know what was beyond it.
We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out.
We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or small.
Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.
We would still want to know what was beyond it. We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out. We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or small.
What's that got to do with the point you were making?I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
Spud, do you recall that this conversation was about your claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" (which it doesn't because almost all of it can't support life)?If I may move the goalposts a touch:-
I have no idea what point you are struggling to make now and still less of what the hell it has to do with your original claim.
If I may move the goalposts a touch:-
More generally, the universe looks ordered.
The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible.
So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.
I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
How about another way of explaining it, which goes back to the example of the meal.
The universe, although being incomprehensibly massive, still seems to display order. It might look chaotic in some ways, but generally there's order. The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible. So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.
I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
How about another way of explaining it, which goes back to the example of the meal.
The universe, although being incomprehensibly massive, still seems to display order. It might look chaotic in some ways, but generally there's order. The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible. So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.
This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?No... :-( I might do if you elaborate a bit?
My point was not 'What's the point of such a big Universe?' It was a response to your suggestion that the Universe was made to support life.Well from what I have heard from people of various religions, it does imply that to them.
Order does not imply to me an intelligence being behind it.
This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?The Who Made God argument, you mean?
The Who Made God argument, you mean?
Well from what I have heard from people of various religions, it does imply that to them.
This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?Yes it sounds as though you are going to inflinct the evolution of the sausage on us.
The Who Made God argument, you mean?
Yes it sounds as though you are going to inflinct the evolution of the sausage on us.
Alternatively the perfect sausage has always existed.
The point is that postulating a god that made the universe in order to explain it (or some aspect of it) is firstly, nothing but a baseless guess (unless you have some other evidence) and secondly, it explains bugger all. All you've achieved is replacing a question about the universe with an exactly equivalent one about some 'god' that is only a baseless guess anyway. It isn't an explanation at all; it's basically shrugging your shoulders and saying "this is hard to explain... I dunno, it must be magic" - then calling the magic 'god'.It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.
It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.
You and your ilk merely have an extreme form of the modern fallacy. I blame poor education and that collective orgy of intellectual w**k known as New Atheism.
If there is an intelligent designer what created it?I don't know.
If there is an intelligent designer what created it?
Hoorah, back to good old infinite regression.Or special pleading possibly
Hoorah, back to good old infinite regression.Prove infinite regression. In other words prove it's necessity.
Prove infinite regression. In other words prove it's necessity.It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc. It isn't a claim that it exists - it's pointing out that it's not useful as an argument unless you use special pleading which then makes it illogical in a different way
We know that this is a universe of cause and effect so why should the universe flout it's defining feature? On the other hand does that need to be true of a universal creator?
It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc. It isn't a claim that it exists - it's pointing out that it's not useful as an argument unless you use special pleading which then makes it illogical in a different wayThis is why Russell hit the buffers. The logic he is using is palpably and as he himself admitted only geared up for the just is explanation of the universe.
This is why Russell hit the buffers. The logic he is using is palpably and as he himself admitted only geared up for the just is explanation of the universe.No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know. That doesn't help that using order must be caused by something with order either involves special pleading or an infinite regress. Please stop going down the misrepresentation route
There is no way of dealing with that without some encountering what looks like special pleading either on behalf of the universe or God.....but since we have the universe then special pleading goes against, as I said, it's signature features.
The Aristotelian argument is that everything seems at any moment to derive it's being, it's position and it's status from something else but derived being etc is illogical without actual and thus by logic we have what looks like a unique. I'll leave that to you to sort that out into the notional ''logic'' you speak of.
No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know.Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'. Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.
Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'. Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.No, it's an I don't know - again stop misrepresenting me. And none of that makes the problems with Spud's argument any different.
That's before we consider whether it's an ''I don't know, but....''
No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know. That doesn't help that using order must be caused by something with order either involves special pleading or an infinite regress. Please stop going down the misrepresentation route
It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.
Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'.
Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.
That's before we consider whether it's an ''I don't know, but....''
Who claimed that? We know the universe exists - we don't know that an intelligent creator does - that's just a guess.And ''I don't know but''.....is that rational? Because that seems quintessentially to be your line....I don't know but God is out of the question......Shoddy, shabby and shitty on your part I'm afraid.
Obvious drivel.
More drivel. If we are basing our conclusions on evidence and logic and there isn't enough to draw a conclusion, then "I don't know" is a rational response.
We don't know how the universe was formed, we can speculate all we like until there is verifiable evidence to support our speculations.But the assertion was that an intelligent creator isn't even worth consideration....IOW ''We don't know, but...'' which is shoddy, shabby and shitty.
And ''I don't know but''.....is that rational? Because that seems quintessentially to be your line....I don't know but God is out of the question......Shoddy, shabby and shitty on your part I'm afraid.
There is no "but". I don't know and guessing is silly.
But the assertion was that an intelligent creator isn't even worth consideration....IOW ''We don't know, but...'' which is shoddy, shabby and shitty.
It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc.
"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."Quoted from SpecialPleadingFallaciesAreUs.com
Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god
"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."
Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god
"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."
Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god
"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."
Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god
"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."
Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god
But we haven't established that the Universe needs a cause yet.In your view, did it have a beginning? If so, doesn't that mean it must have a cause?
Vlad makes the classic mistake of observing that things in the Universe have causes (actually, that is a dubious claim in itself but we'll let it pass) and assuming that the Universe must therefore have a cause. That's as erroneous as observing that all the players in the Man United squad have two legs, therefore Man United has two legs.
In your view, did it have a beginning?
If so, doesn't that mean it must have a cause?
But we haven't established that the Universe needs a cause yet.Wrong, the universe could be around forever. The question is though why something and not nothing.
Vlad makes the classic mistake of observing that things in the Universe have causes (actually, that is a dubious claim in itself but we'll let it pass) and assuming that the Universe must therefore have a cause. That's as erroneous as observing that all the players in the Man United squad have two legs, therefore Man United has two legs.
Wrong, the universe could be around forever.
The question is though why something and not nothing.
What is the evidence that it doesn't have a cause, where is the evidence that it ''just is?''
And if you argue that something could just be eternal you then have no business asking questions like ''who made God'' or guff talk about infinite regresses.
Atheists end up both hating and appealing to the infinite.
In your view, did it have a beginning?I don’t know. Since time is a property of the Universe, I’m not even sure the question makes sense.
If so, doesn't that mean it must have a cause?Why?
Wrong, the universe could be around forever. The question is though why something and not nothing.Time is a property of the Universe. The Universe must necessarily have existed as long as there has been time. The question of why something rather than nothing is pretty deep and, so far, unanswered. Claiming the Universe exists because some deity created it doesn’t help because we are left with the question why some god rather than no god?
What is the evidence that it doesn't have a cause, where is the evidence that it ''just is?''I do not know of any evidence that the Universe doesn’t have a cause, but, likewise you have no evidence that it does have a cause. The situation doesn’t bother me because I don’t try to construct elaborate and ultimately useless proofs of the Christian god based on the premise that the Universe doesn’t have a cause.
And if you argue that something could just be eternal you then have no business asking questions like ''who made God'' or guff talk about infinite regresses.As long as you recognise that if something can be eternal you have no business claiming that God must have created it.
Atheists end up both hating and appealing to the infinite.I haven’t seen an atheist appeal to anything on this thread. Can you point out where I or any other atheist has appealed to the infinite?
I don’t know. Since time is a property of the Universe, I’m not even sure the question makes sense.If it didn't have a beginning, then as the article says, it would be eternal and would have have burnt itself out long ago.
Why?For the same reason that you can't fully explain our own existence by saying that you were found in a hospital or I was found in a vegetable patch.
If it didn't have a beginning, then as the article says, it would be eternal and would have have burnt itself out long ago.
If it didn't have a beginning, then as the article says, it would be eternal and would have have burnt itself out long ago.
I think real scientists argue for a beginning to the universe some fifteen billion years ago in the big bang on the grounds, inter alia, that if it had existed for ever it would have reached a state of maximum entropy ("burnt itself out") long ago - indeed, an infinite amount of time ago.
There is very little doubt that the universe in its present form emerged from a very hot and dense state with very low entropy* about that long ago.That is a very good answer to a completely different point.
However, General Relativity (which is the only tested theory we have that seems applicable) suggests a singularity which would represent the start of time itself - so looking for a pre-existing cause is futile. As I said in #921 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14901.msg729843#msg729843), what the theory describes is a four dimensional manifold with time being just an internal direction within it.
Apart from that, it seems inevitable that how General Relativity relates to Quantum Field Theory is likely to be significant and may alter the view (although see Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology) for another view based on GR). Cosmology is not short of conjectures and potential hypotheses. We don't know enough to be sure but there is no need to give up and say "this is hard to explain, so it must be god-magic" Even if we had no ideas at all, the god fairy tale is still nothing but a baseless guess...
* Calculating the entropy of the universe as a whole is far from straightforward and the low entropy of the big bang is to do with the gravitational degrees of freedom that appear to have been very constrained.
There is very little doubt that the universe in its present form emerged from a very hot and dense state with very low entropy* about that long ago.So what heated it up to that very hot and dense state?
So what heated it up to that very hot and dense state?
That is a very good answer to a completely different point.
So what heated it up to that very hot and dense state?
I have given a number of possible answers based on what is currently known but actually it's totally irrelevant to any question of the existence of some god - it's up to those people who propose the idea (or any idea) to provide some reason to take it seriously.
You started off with the universe looking like it's designed for life (which it isn't), then it was that order needed explaining but you can't explain an ordered god and now it seems to be down to the ever shrinking god of the gaps.
I will return to my point that a god is (at best) a baseless guess that explains nothing; it just changes the subject of the question. Instead of why this universe exists, it becomes why this god exists.
One day science may have the answer.You mock believers for brining in God to explain things, but your regular parrot-cry of "One day science may have the answer" amounts to much the same thing.
God is not a baseless guess, it's an intelligent guess (unless you can explain why the universe doesn't look like it's designed for life - the solar system certainly does, and so potentially could many other solar systems be, whether life exists there or not).
So the next logical step is to be open to God being a personal God and have a chat with him.
You mock believers for brining in God to explain things, but your regular parrot-cry of "One day science may have the answer" amounts to much the same thing.
You mock believers for brining in God to explain things, but your regular parrot-cry of "One day science may have the answer" amounts to much the same thing.
You mock believers for brining in God to explain things, but your regular parrot-cry of "One day science may have the answer" amounts to much the same thing.
It is not mockery.Stop whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick. Pllleeeeease.
The Christian Church has, at base, remained virtually unchanged for 2,000 years despite all the errors in its 'Book of Rules', aka 'The Bible', that have repeatedly been pointed out (Exodus 22:18 contradicting the Sixth Commandment for one of the minor ones) whilst Science will admit that it does not know everything and continually investigates in order to prove itself correct or to correct any errors or to gain knowledge of what it does not yet know.
Stop whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick. Pllleeeeease.
It is you who appears to be whinging with each post you make! Without science we wouldn't be where we are today, religion is still back in the dark ages. ::)Yeh 1) what have you ever had to do with science?
Thanks to science we have global warming, species extinction and Nuclear weapons.
Yes and thanks to science we have cures for all sorts of diseases, we have the ability to connect over the internet, we have the ability to heat our homes.That applies to LR's post as well which was saying we were here because of science which seems to be cherry picking. I think Vlad's position here, and is in line with yours. Either science is neutral or it has to be debited with the bad things as well as credited with the good.
Come on you know better than that argument. Science is neither positive or negative. It is neutral. It is what humans choose to do with science that causes the good and the bad.
That applies to LR's post as well which was saying we were here because of science which seems to be cherry picking. I think Vlad's position here, and is in line with yours. Either science is neutral or it has to be debited with the bad things as well as credited with the good.Spot on.
Yeh 1) what have you ever had to do with science?
2) Thanks to science we have global warming, species extinction and Nuclear weapons.
My husband's specialism is science! OK so you would prefer to be back in the time of the cave dwellers would you?What your husband's specialism is irrelevant. The point is that science is a neutral process and includes the various ills that lad has listed. Viewing it as simply a positive is cherry picking.
What your husband's specialism is irrelevant. The point is that science is a neutral process and includes the various ills that lad has listed. Viewing it as simply a positive is cherry picking.
No my husband's specialism is not irrelevant, as Vlad asked me what I had to do with science, my husband has discussed scientific theories with me in our many years of marriage. Of course not every scientific process is benign I didn't say it was.Then what is your claim about science?
Spot on.
Then what is your claim about science?
My claim about science is that we would still be back in the dark ages without the benefits it has produced over the years, but as has been pointed there are many negatives too. I prefer to live in the modern world, than days of yore, even if it is far from perfect.But if we move into a period of mass extinction and severe climate change brought on because of our use of scientific advances wouldn't that be subject to change?
But if we move into a period of mass extinction and severe climate change brought on because of our use of scientific advances wouldn't that be subject to change?
Of course we need to change things that are harming the environment if human activity is the cause, I have never denied that.I didn't say you had denied it Rather I wondered that if the uses of science were to have an outcome that was a severe d is off of both other species (already happening) and in humans, whether your attitude to science might not be liable to change?
I didn't say you had denied it Rather I wondered that if the uses of science were to have an outcome that was a severe d is off of both other species (already happening) and in humans, whether your attitude to science might not be liable to change?
Change what exactly, wishing we lived in the times before scientific activity impinged on our lives? If that is the question, I have to say I prefer to live as we are today. I hope there will be scientific breakthroughs which will put right the damage that has been done.
NS where do you stand on this, would you like to go back to a pre-science era?
Change whether you saw science as a good, rather than as a neutral. You seem to be struggling with how hypotheticals work. You deal with the question not with saying, it won't arise.
As to my position, I have no interest in going back in time but that's because of a complex set of considerations. There has never really been a pre science era for humans. Science exists because that's how we do things and it works. Arguably religion or perhaps spirituality is another way we do things and that for many of us, not me, seems to work.
I don't understand what you mean by science being neutral when it effects our lives?It's just a process. It isn't external. It doesn't do anything. It is us. The knowledge we fInd through the process is then used by us. How we use it isn't dependent on science but upon us.
It's just a process. It isn't external. It doesn't do anything. It is us. The knowledge we fInd through the process is then used by us. How we use it isn't dependent on science but upon us.
You mean the way we use the scientific discoveries?Or technological advancements. It doesn't do anything, we do.
Or technological advancements. It doesn't do anything, we do.
Science and technology are implemented by human ingenuity.And more particularly human desires and wants.
And more particularly human desires and wants.
And needs, like finding a cure for illnesses.Or killing enemies.
Science is a method to make discoveries and increase knowledge. The other way to look at it therefore is is increasing human knowledge good, bad or neutral.Not sure I see those as alternative views.
Not sure I see those as alternative views.
Maybe not, but I hoped it would clarify things a bit as you and LR seemed to be thinking about it in different ways. Feel free to ignore me if not :-)Why would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?
Why would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?
Stop whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick. Pllleeeeease.
That applies to LR's post as well which was saying we were here because of science which seems to be cherry picking. I think Vlad's position here, and is in line with yours. Either science is neutral or it has to be debited with the bad things as well as credited with the good.
hy would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?
Stop trying to convince people that Christianity knows more than science then!Completely misrepresentative.
Or that Christianity's view of history is more accurate than sciences.
I would rather be accused of 'whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick' than of trying to convince unbelievers that your God exists by regurgitating endless streams of theist crap.
Completely misrepresentative.
If it didn't have a beginning, then as the article says, it would be eternal and would have have burnt itself out long ago.No you are not getting it. Time is a property of the Universe. Words like "eternal" and "beginning" have meaning only in the context of being in the Universe.The Universe itself could just be. Much like you argue about your god.
For the same reason that you can't fully explain our own existence by saying that you were found in a hospital or I was found in a vegetable patch.That doesn't answer my question which was "why does a universe that had a beginning need a cause?" You have just answered "why are we compelled to look for a cause?"
That is a very good answer to a completely different point.No it isn't. It perfectly answers your point about the Universe having burnt out.
Completely misrepresentative.
If science were enough for you why are you still a pagan with your own Gods and don't please guff on in your normal tedious way about not
believing your own gods exist in anyway shape or form or whatever construct you make up to allow yourself to run with the hare and the hounds.
Your misrepresentation not mine.No, misrepresentation on your part.
I am not, and have never, claimed to have any prooof of any knid that my deities (Gods and Goddesses) exist.
They may not, but I have faith that they do and, until proof comes along that they do not, I will continue to honour them.
I do not, as you do with your deity, claim that my Goddesses and Gods exist just because some old book (of questionable origin) whose equally questionable accuracy is under discussion in this thread, says he does. Oh sorry - your God demands a capital H for He doesn't He!
No, misrepresentation on your part.
I have never said anywhere that science doesn't know more than religion or religion knows more than science.
Science could have a trillion facts and still be missing information of ultimate importance existententially.
Your ''old book'' tosh is the fallacy of modernity tattooed in foot high black Gothic letters on a large person's arse cheeks.
............... southern cheeks................;D ;D ;D
Vladdo,It must know something Hillside even/especially if it were the greatest con in History. Don'tcha love how folks won't buy even that because they can't conceive of the religious doing or having the greatest thing since religion is some kind of failed science or something.
But you have said that religion knows something - or at least that your religion does. Your difficulty though is just running away whenever you’re asked for a method to distinguish this supposed knowledge from just guessing.
Vladdo,''Religion knows nothing'' is an arseclenching ridiculous slogan which is wankfodder for rabid antitheists. Do you talk like this in the real world?
But you have said that religion knows something
Vladdo,Palpable nonsense is that which can be demonstrated as palpable nonsense not just what Hillside and his wee flying primates opine.
As you seem to have missed the point entirely, I’ll spell it out for you. Again. If you think you that one or more religions know something to be objectively true, how do you know that? What method do you apply to the claim to distinguish it from guessing or palpable nonsense?
Is it really such a hard question for you to grasp, at least conceptually?
Palpable nonsense...
Palpable nonsense is that which can be demonstrated as palpable nonsense not just what Hillside and his wee flying primates opine.
Guessing is an action. A doing word.
How do we distinguish between the knowing simper of a celebrity atheist and them having shit themselves?
So you can't answer the question (yet again). What's the problem?Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.
How about a simpler question: can you name one objective fact that your religion has given us?
Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.
So you can't answer the question (yet again). What's the problem?Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.
How about a simpler question: can you name one objective fact that your religion has given us?
Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;
You could have just said no.
Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;
Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;Less successfully than what?
Less successfully than what?Than itself in areas such Physics, chemistry and biology. The roots of psychology, sociology and anthropology are found in religion.
The roots of psychology, sociology and anthropology are found in religion.Really?!?
Really?!?These are studies of human nature and self knowledge gained by introspection of the self. Since the self does not exist in science and science can only probe the psyche, society and humanity so far it provides neither the historical basis or the fundemental raison d'etre for these 'ologies'.
I thought they are about studying something, hence the suffix ...ology. I think they are rooted in science and the scientific method, not religion.
Scientism left unmoderated will possible lead to the extinction of these subjects infavour of things which fit the physicalism of modern scientists out for an easier ride namely Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
Oh come on. Are you serious?!Absolutely. Scientism threatens to drive out the humane aspects of psychology and sociology leaving those in mental or social anguish with an effective 'pull your self together' or worse, therapy designed to make people atheist and accepting of what Dawkins might refer to as the cold truths of the human condition. Such therapy would I imagine be on such a wide and peer pressured scale that it would make things like gay therapy seem like a private do.
Absolutely. Scientism threatens to drive out the humane aspects of psychology and sociology leaving those in mental or social anguish with an effective 'pull your self together' or worse, therapy designed to make people atheist and accepting of what Dawkins might refer to as the cold truths of the human condition. Such therapy would I imagine be on such a wide and peer pressured scale that it would make things like gay therapy seem like a private do.
There is a danger that because the self doesn't exist the individual becomes a totally corporate commodity with psychology geared towards productivity rather than the self which doesn't exist anyway.
Religion has caused a lot of mental anguish.Do we have current figures? Apparently we are now a majority non religious society and mental anguish has increased in the young thanks to new ways of inflicting and acquiring it electronically.
Do we have current figures? Apparently we are now a majority non religious society and mental anguish has increased in the young thanks to new ways of inflicting and acquiring it electronically.
As I say a functional scientism based on everything being function is of no help to those peer pressured into considering their function.
I would beg to disagree therefore since there is mental anguish a go go in our largely apatheist society.
Mental anguish can be caused by many things having religion forced down your throat, especially as a child, is one of them.You sound almost as though you write from experience. Don't bottle it up - tell us all!
Mental anguish can be caused by many things having religion forced down your throat, especially as a child, is one of them.I'm more used to occasionally glimpsing the subtle oppressive secular humanist Zeitgeist LR so you will have to explain this forcing down one's throat business.
Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.
Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;
Suffice it to say that when you, Ippy and The Side guff on about any short comings of religion and elevate science into scientism the only real argument you ever have is science is not religion....well, so what?
Than itself in areas such Physics, chemistry and biology. The roots of psychology, sociology and anthropology are found in religion.
What interest ultimately have for something (defined by a supposed adherence to science) like the self or the personality that it considers an illusion or at best an organ infected with memes?
The answer is none and if relied on 100% would likely result in neglect as opposed to the fairy, dairy science utopia proposed by Humanists UK.
These are studies of human nature and self knowledge gained by introspection of the self.
Since the self does not exist in science and science can only probe the psyche, society and humanity so far it provides neither the historical basis or the fundemental raison d'etre for these 'ologies'.
Scientism left unmoderated will possible lead to the extinction of these subjects infavour of things which fit the physicalism of modern scientists out for an easier ride namely Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
Absolutely. Scientism threatens to drive out the humane aspects of psychology and sociology leaving those in mental or social anguish with an effective 'pull your self together' or worse, therapy designed to make people atheist and accepting of what Dawkins might refer to as the cold truths of the human condition. Such therapy would I imagine be on such a wide and peer pressured scale that it would make things like gay therapy seem like a private do.
There is a danger that because the self doesn't exist the individual becomes a totally corporate commodity with psychology geared towards productivity rather than the self which doesn't exist anyway.
Do we have current figures? Apparently we are now a majority non religious society and mental anguish has increased in the young thanks to new ways of inflicting and acquiring it electronically.
As I say a functional scientism based on everything being function is of no help to those peer pressured into considering their function.
I would beg to disagree therefore since there is mental anguish a go go in our largely apatheist society.
Absolutely. Scientism threatens to drive out the humane aspects of psychology and sociology leaving those in mental or social anguish with an effective 'pull your self together' or worse, therapy designed to make people atheist and accepting of what Dawkins might refer to as the cold truths of the human condition. Such therapy would I imagine be on such a wide and peer pressured scale that it would make things like gay therapy seem like a private do.
There is a danger that because the self doesn't exist the individual becomes a totally corporate commodity with psychology geared towards productivity rather than the self which doesn't exist anyway.
Any evidence if that?
Maeght,
Evidence? Vlad?
That's very funny.
I don't see therapy being overwhelmed by scientism or atheism. There have always been many strands in therapy, ranging from behavioural to semi-mystical, and the obvious point is horses for courses, people tend to find a style that suits them. I suppose Freud and Jung tried to establish it on scientific foundations, but it didn't really fly, and they adapted to more relational ideas, and in Jung's case, spiritual ones.I wonder if that is so Wigginhall. To me there is very little critique of secular humanist techniques but immediate knee jerk reaction against religion. Would you say that there are any simple therapeutic techniques based only on the scientific method?
Back in the UK and just time for a quick demolition of Vlad’s various ludicrousnesses…Not at all quick Hillside and one day, when I've read it i'll comment on whether it is anywhere near near a demolition.
Except these disciplines were all “birthed” by the rejection of religious superstition that was the Enlightenment – religion can no more take credit for them than studying chicken entrails can take credit for modern weather forecasting.
Presumably by “less successfully” he actually means “less precisely” or “less reliably”, but that’s a function of the greater complexity that minds have than, say, metals used in mechanical engineering. Better though I’d have thought the partial successes that eg psychiatry gives us than the “that’ll be demons that need casting out then” that religion would offer instead.
First, let’s not forget that Vladdo uses his own personal re-definitions of “scientism” so there’s no telling what he might mean by it this time.
Second though, what bluehillside at least actually says is that science produces solutions that demonstrably work, whereas religious just makes guesses about stuff. Ask Vlad to explain in what way religious claims can be distinguished from guessing and he will of course invariably head for the door.
Funny that.
He asserted with no supporting logic or evidence whatever…
Still, at least he’s retrenched a bit from the even more outlandish “birthed by”, which must be progress of some sort I guess.
I’ve seen bowls of spilled alphabet soup that are more coherent that that.
And now he’s playing with the bits of spaghetti and sauce that are all over the table. Weird.
Not really. What they’re actually gained by is as rigorous analysis of the facts and evidence as are available, tested with real life subject experience, and used to develop theories and practical intervention techniques.
“The self does not exist in science” eh? WTF?
Tell it to Freud.
Utterly bonkers. Areas in which we don’t have any or complete answers are what inspire the various scientific disciplines to find out more, not to eliminate them at all.
That’s a grotesque misrepresentation. What “science” – ie, relevant scientific enquiry into the causes of and possible cures for “mental or social anguish” actually does is to try to ameliorate or even remove them. What would the religious approach be instead – self-flagellation to show “god” they were sorry? Starvation to drive out the demons perhaps? A thorough course of praying perhaps (don’t forget to complete the course though – very important that)? The selling of indulgencies maybe?
A false conclusion built on an initial lie. Who says “the self” doesn’t exist?
Oooh, “mental anguish” eh? How I wonder is Vlad defining this term, and how then is he measuring its supposed “increase”? Is this “anguish” greater in the young than oh, I dunno, most of them dying from various diseases, famine, natural disasters etc before the scientific method he so decries managed to reduce hugely the incidences of all of these things?
Yes, he does indeed say gibberish of this kind. No idea why though.
And he finishes with an un-defined quantitative term (“a go go”), no argument and no evidence of any kind. The papers report some young people suffering issues of alienation, possibly connected with the excessive uses of their X-boxes and that’s enough for Vladdo to draw a daft generalisation.
Desperate stuff indeed.
Any evidence if that?It's my opinion based on the havoc scientism has wrought on it's users on this forum.
Not at all quick Hillside and one day, when I've read it i'll comment on whether it is anywhere near near a demolition.
Back in the UK and just time for a quick demolition of Vlad’s various ludicrousnesses…Revisionist rubbish, Hillside.
Except these disciplines were all “birthed” by the rejection of religious superstition that was the Enlightenment – religion can no more take credit for them than studying chicken entrails can take credit for modern weather forecasting.
It's my opinion based on the havoc scientism has wrought on it's users on this forum.
Revisionist rubbish, Hillside.
Hillside returns and brings his alternative reality with him. The effect is, well, almost supernatural
Vladdo,Enlightenment is the latest Buzz in your circles isn't it. The next great antitheist push forward, the great galvaniser from Pinker, When the antitheists turned the world upside down.......I'm standing by for phrases such as ''The day the universe changed etc''....go ahead, make my day.
Correcting your mistake isn't revisionism. Try some reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Vladdo,The nature of the posts of those who embrace scientism.
And your evidence for this supposed "havoc" would be what exactly?
Enlightenment is the latest Buzz in your circles isn't it.
The next great antitheist push forward, the great galvaniser from Pinker, When the antitheists turned the world upside down.......I'm standing by for phrases such as ''The day the universe changed etc''....go ahead, make my day.
The nature of the posts of those who embrace scientism.
It's my opinion based on the havoc scientism has wrought on it's users on this forum.
Examples?
Maeght,This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf. When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.
Oh the optimism you dear sweet boy you.
Here's how it works:
Step 1: Vladdo makes up his own personal meaning for the term "scientism". It's hard to tell what it is at any given time because it moves around a bit, but essentially it's something like "thinking science has or will have the answers to everything" rather than its correct meaning of, "giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science".
This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf. When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.
I wonder if that is so Wigginhall. To me there is very little critique of secular humanist techniques but immediate knee jerk reaction against religion. Would you say that there are any simple therapeutic techniques based only on the scientific method?
Science has a chance of coming up with the answers, religion has no chance at all.Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,
I'm not sure what you mean here. Where is there a knee jerk reaction?There is suspicion of any spiritual healing. People only really accept the notion of mechanistic, chemical and methodological healing. And yes I am contrasting spiritual with mechanism, one size fits all methods and chemistry.
This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf.
When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.
Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,
There is suspicion of any spiritual healing. People only really accept the notion of mechanistic, chemical and methodological healing. And yes I am contrasting spiritual with mechanism, one size fits all methods and chemistry.
Nothing wrong with them but you need the human touch too and many patients are of a spiritual bent or find that in themselves.
Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,
Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.
Wheras, of course, you are Pure religiion. Pure Antiscientism.Happy to be antiscientism. People like yourself who don't seem to know the difference between science and scientism don't help in discussions like these.
Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.
Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.You are confusing scientism with science.
I am still struggling to see where you see this happening. Most therapists that I know talk about emotional and psychological healing. And of course, they use the human touch, therapy works via relationship.
If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.
Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.
If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.
Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.
What an unbelievably naive, post, even Vlad's silly ramblings can't top this one of yours Spud.I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.
Regards ippy
I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.
You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.
I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.Well put, thanks.
If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.
Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.
If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.
Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.
That's a bold comment. You may be right, but then, you may not.
If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose.
For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.Oh, please, this is kiddie stuff. Haven't you got anything better?
Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.But it's all just guesswork. You can't provide any means of differentiating between true religious ideas and false ones.
You are confusing scientism with science.So you can't answer the question. You religionists are absolutely full of crap.
So you can't answer the question. You religionists are absolutely full of crap.Don't take it out on us religionists just because you don't know your science(good) from your scientism( Bad ).
Wow, is Spud really saying that because we haven't been present when stars form, therefore it didn't happen? Gordon Bennett. I thought I'd seen everything. So only things that I experience, can be counted as 'true'? That sure narrows it down a bit. How about Christ's crucifixion then?In your rush to have a sneer at religion, you have misread Spud's post. He didn't say that.
That's a bold comment. You may be right, but then, you may not.See #1045
Oh, please, this is kiddie stuff. Haven't you got anything better?What I said about humans not being able to see star and moon formation was probably not a good way of illustrating what I was trying to say. Science could come up with the mechanism; however, Vlad articulated what I wanted to say, in #1045. But then I guess we are back to your claim that there may not have been a beginning!
But it's all just guesswork. You can't provide any means of differentiating between true religious ideas and false ones."By their fruits you will know them"
I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.
You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.
I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.
You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.
See #1045
SpudWhy should he say anything about that? His point was that science can only analyse what exists. It can't explain why anything exists, only describe it as it is.
Vlad's #1045 quoted below.
While Vlad notes, in his first paragraph, that 'science' is limited to what its methods are appropriate for (which nobody disputes) he says nothing about how anything that is claimed to fall outwith 'science' should be recognised in the first place and then studied, which would presumably require methods that are analogous to the scientific method - the 'unscientific method' if you will.
Why should he say anything about it? His point was that science can only analyse what exists. It can't explain why anything exists, only describe it as it is.
I meant to say that science can't explain how or why thwre is something rather than nothing, if that helps clarify.
Don't take it out on us religionists just because you don't know your science(good) from your scientism( Bad ).I asked you a question and you haven't even attempted to answer it. Of course I'm going to blame you for your inability to frame a coherent defence of your position.
It might at some point explain the 'how'How?
See #1045Why? It was just Vlad's usual pile of incoherent garbage.
What I said about humans not being able to see star and moon formation was probably not a good way of illustrating what I was trying to say. Science could come up with the mechanism; however, Vlad articulated what I wanted to say, in #1045.Science could come up with a mechanism and then (this is the important bit) the predicted effects of the mechanism are compared with reality to see if the mechanism is plausible. What tests do religionists do to determine if their ideas are right or wrong?
But then I guess we are back to your claim that there may not have been a beginning!"You understand it is not a claim? It's merely a possibility that hasn't been ruled out. It looks like time in the Universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, but the Universe itself might just be. This is not any more of a stretch than the Christian assertion that God just is. Well, in fact it is less of a stretch because we have direct evidence that the Universe exists.
Why should he say anything about that? His point was that science can only analyse what exists.So science can't analyse God because God doesn't exist. For once we agree.
How?
No idea, Vlad - but you'll know this already since I also said, and which you decided to ignore when quoting me, 'when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions'.There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question. Perhaps that is one reason why religion is so successful; people would rather accept any old crap rather than embrace their ignorance on a topic.
Naughty Vlad!
I meant to say that science can't explain how or why thwre is something rather than nothing, if that helps clarify.
https://www.popsci.com/dinosaur-footprints-found-in-scotland
So science can't analyse God because God doesn't exist. For once we agree.Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy, including the origin or existence of the universe. In these matters science often gives way to maths and IMV whether some scientists like it or not philosophy and when those don't do the job, antitheist scientists will try and shuffle back on science.
Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy, including the origin or existence of the universe. In these matters science often gives way to maths and IMV whether some scientists like it or not philosophy and when those don't do the job, antitheist scientists will try and shuffle back on science.
Vladdo,What do you think science tells us about the origin of the universe Hillside?
Even by your dismal standards that’s already a strong contender for stupidest post of the day.
First, “science” can already tell us a lot about the origin of the universe and there’s no reason to think that its remarkable progress in that area won’t continue.
Second, science often “gives way” to other disciplines because of the impracticality of testing their hypotheses. Consider for example the Higgs-Boson conjecture before the technology and funding was available to build the Large Hadron Collider. There’s no “like it or not” about that though – it’s just the reality of doing science.
It might at some point explain the 'how', when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions,So far it has had to make assumptions in order to do so. Eg the existence of dark matter to enable gas clouds to collapse and form stars. How do you know this won't always be the case?
What do you think science tells us about the origin of the universe Hillside?
There are things that science cannot yet tell us about matter because we don't have the means.
Science may well tell us more and more about matter…
…but it cannot say anything about the origin of matter/energy without invoking more or previous matter/energy in which case it is not examining the origin but merely matter/energy itself.
That is why science cannot examine the origin of the universe.
So far it has had to make assumptions in order to do so. Eg the existence of dark matter to enable gas clouds to collapse and form stars. How do you know this won't always be the case?
In your rush to have a sneer at religion, you have misread Spud's post. He didn't say that.
Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy,Yes, as Spud says: things that don't exist.
including the origin or existence of the universe.The Universe undeniably exists. Science can't analyse its origin at the moment, but that doesn't mean it will never be able to.
Yes, as Spud says: things that don't exist.Straight to the point and far, far, far, far, far, better than Hillside except you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins. Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.
The Universe undeniably exists. Science can't analyse its origin at the moment,
Straight to the point
you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins.Well first somebody has to come up with a testable idea of why there is a Universe rather than not.
Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.
Straight to the point and far, far, far, far, far, better than Hillside except you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins. Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.
Oh and cut the arseclenching scientism thank you.
Talking of getting straight to the point, when are you going to get to the point of telling us how you know that religionist ideas are right?I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universe ....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.
Well first somebody has to come up with a testable idea of why there is a Universe rather than not.
Yes, but you don't know which one it is.
Vladdo,like?
Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins
I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universe ....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.
Vladdo,
Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. Science would only fail conceptually here if you could demonstrate first that the universe necessarily had an origin, second that if it did then it had a cause outwith the universe, and third that whatever that cause was is also whatever you happen to guess it to be.
As you've never even tried to make an argument for any of these things we can safely point, laugh and move on.
Gibberish
Why is the universe being eternal or popping out of nothing suddenly superior to the idea of an origin?
Also let me put another question? Why is the universe here at all?
How can science demonstrate eternality anyway. How does it propose to find evidence of the universe popping out of nothing since as the universe is here what evidence can there be of the nothing it appeared out of?
Present your scientific evidence for any scenario now rather than trying to guff on about what you think I think.
Why is the universe being eternal or popping out of nothing suddenly superior to the idea of an origin?
Also let me put another question? Why is the universe here at all?
How can science demonstrate eternality anyway. How does it propose to find evidence of the universe popping out of nothing since as the universe is here what evidence can there be of the nothing it appeared out of?
Present your scientific evidence for any scenario now rather than trying to guff on about what you think I think.
Vladdo,When I said Science could not say anything about the origins of the universe you said science had plenty to say about the origins of the universe. You told me to read Hawking on the origins.
You’re either terribly lost, terribly ill-informed or terribly obtuse.
No-one says that it’s necessarily “superior”, but these and other conjectures mean you cannot just assume that a "something" must have created the universe. If you really want to find a reason for the likely superiority though, try at least to read the Hawking link I gave you. If spacetime began with a singularity, then talking about a “before” then when a creator could have been at work is meaningless.
That’s a non-question, for reasons that have been explained to you many times. You can only have a “why” if you can demonstrate first that there was an intelligent agency to decide on or care about the why.
You’re collapsing into incoherence again. Science (or theoretical science at least) would demonstrate eternality if it could provide a cogent model in which that was the answer. Alternatively, if spacetime began then question evaporates in any case because there was no time before then.
Read the link I gave you to get you started.
When I said Science could not say anything about the origins of the universe you said science had plenty to say about the origins of the universe. You told me to read Hawking on the origins.more gibberish
You then contradicted yourself by questioning the term origin. So you wouldn't have to admit that science has nothing to say on the origin of the universe.
Why is it a non question?
It is an inconvenient question for you and the scientist you quoted Krauss made an arse of himself redefining the definition of the term nothing.
You have no scientific evidence for an eternal universe because there cannot be any.
If science tells us anything it is that it cannot work if there is nothing for it to work on.
more gibberishLets then have the scientific explanation of how the universe either came into existence out of nothing that can be described as a universe. Whether it is eternal, whether it created itself, or whatever.
Lets then have the scientific explanation of how the universe either came into existence out of nothing that can be described as a universe. Whether it is eternal, whether it created itself, or whatever.and more gibberish
What can be simpler than that?
Is this tiresome thread still going?
Is this tiresome thread still going?
I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universeYour definition is wrong.
....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.I agree but your definition is wrong. When are religionists going to come up with an explanation of the origin of the Universe that is more than just a random guess?
It will continue as long a there is one person willing to respond to Vlad's posts.Yes if everyone stops posting Vlad will stop..........great idea what?
Any response to Vlad is what he requires, his raison d'etre - ignore him and he will have no reason to post anything.
Your definition is wrong.You raise one fair point out of two here. Religionists don't know/have proof whether the universe is eternal or created ex nihilo. The Aristotelian and Thomist arguments though are designed to work for either eventuality.......Not many antitheist people know that.
I agree but your definition is wrong. When are religionists going to come up with an explanation of the origin of the Universe that is more than just a random guess?
like?
Vladdo,But isn't Hawking, according to you faulty, for entertaining the idea of an origin of the universe?
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
But isn't Hawking, according, to you faulty for entertaining the idea of an origin of the universe?
There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question. Perhaps that is one reason why religion is so successful; people would rather accept any old crap rather than embrace their ignorance on a topic.
Vladdo,Your getting shirty now and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.
Read the piece and stop lying.
Your getting shirty now and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.
You talk about how things began. There is and can be no scientific comment on a situation where the laws of physics break down can there?
And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.
For starters the Kalam is an example of begging the question: a non-runner right enough.What do you mean. How is it begging the question?
Your getting shirty now…
…and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.
You talk about how things began. There is and can be no scientific comment on a situation where the laws of physics break down can there?
And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.
Vladdo,A lot of scientists saying that the big bang may not be the origin of the universe but a wee part of is hardly science explaining the origins of the universe is it?
Telling you to stop lying isn’t “getting shirty” – it’s just telling you to stop lying.
No it wasn’t, and no-one “speaks for all scientists”. I told you that science already tells us a great deal about the origin of the universe, and I provided a link to a short lecture by a scientist talking about the origin of the universe. QED
READ THE EFFING LECTURE!
More gibberish. If you’d bothered to read what Hawing said you’d see where you keep going wrong.
How is saying the universe either began or is eternal with no commitment to either ''going wrong''?
More gibberish. If you’d bothered to read what Hawing said you’d see where you keep going wrong.
What do you mean. How is it begging the question?
I have to check your definitions since I found your definition of NPF frequently faulty.
We did the KCA to death when Alien was posting: it is an argument associated with the odious William Lane Craig (who Alien was in thrall to at that time). It begs the question because its premises assume the conclusion of the argument.Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.
So the Kalam argument is wrong because?
Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.
So the Kalam argument is wrong because?
What is the first premise of the Kalam?I'm asking why it's wrong.
Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.
So the Kalam argument is wrong because?
Just read it Vlad, and then think about it - it is very obvious.I want your explanation as to why it is wrong.
I'm asking why it's wrong.
Is this wrong?
All ball bearings are ball bearings.
What is the conclusion of the Kalam, and where does it get you.I'm not arguing that it is demonstrated. I'm asking you why it isn't the case.
The first premise is not demonstrated, so the argument is useless.
I'm not arguing that it is demonstrated. I'm asking you why it isn't the case.
Why what isn't the case?Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?
I want your explanation as to why it is wrong.
Is this wrong?
All ball bearings are ball bearings
I suggest you firstly ensure you know what begging the question involves and then you look closely at the first premise of the KCA.Why is the first premise definitely incorrect?
Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?
Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?
I reject the first and second premise,On what grounds can we reject the idea that everything that has a beginning has a cause?
I have not said it is not definitely incorrect.But you have rejected it.
On what grounds can we reject the idea that everything that has a beginning has a cause?
But you have rejected it.
It is not demonstrated. Simple.Waffle........... if you finally acknowledge it hasn't been proven to be wrong then you acknowledge that it could be so.
My lawn has an even number of blades of grass.
Do you accept that?
If so why?
The default position is to NOT accept the claim, until the claim can be demonstrated.To which I have to then ask you to name something which has a beginning which doesn't have a cause.
To which I have to then ask you to name something which has a beginning which doesn't have a cause.
Not my problem.But you have accepted the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.
Not my problem.You are claiming the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.
I am not making the claim,
But you have accepted the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.
Which means that you are against cause and effect.
Do you believe in miracles? Of course you do because you do not believe in cause and effect.
Also you cannot believe in laws of nature.
Or the weight of probability.
This thread is just going over and over the same ground. If we all stop posting to it, it will finally die a well-deserved death.
You are claiming the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.
You therefore have a burden to prove that because this is an either or. Not a it's not that but we don't know if it's the other.
Why is the first premise definitely incorrect?
No, I just asked Bluehillside for a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument.
You claim to know that this is true.
Begging the question isn't about the premise(s) being correct - it is about the assuming the conclusion within the premise (either explicitly or implicitly).But that is hardly a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument then is it?
No, I just asked Bluehillside for a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument.
The premises are not demonstrated, therefore the argument is useless.But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
Again can you name something which has a beginning which does not have a cause?
This is an either or.
But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
Again can you name something which has a beginning which does not have a cause?
This is an either or.
Again you say I am claiming they are not correct.You said that if the premise could not be demonstrated we had to assume the default position.
Please stop this.
I DO NOT KNOW if they are correct.
You said that if the premise could not be demonstrated we had to assume the default position.
What then is the default position in this case?
But that is hardly a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument then is it?
Demolition in this context sounds like hyperbole...don't you think?
The default position is to not accept any claim until it can be demonstrated to be true.So you do not accept Theism but then you do not accept naturalism?
Don't be silly, Vlad: begging the question is a fallacy, therefore the KCA is fallacious, therefore it is no more than theobabble.I'm not interested in that i'm interested in whether it is true or false or could be.
So you do not accept Theism but then you do not accept naturalism?
I'm not interested in that i'm interested in whether it is true or false or could be.
Is this therefore begging the question?
All ball bearings are ball bearings is begging the question but it happens to be true.
Therefore one cannot say that all things which have a beginning is necessarily false. Therefore we cannot say we have 'demolished' the premise.
Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass?Not my problem.
I'm not interested in that i'm interested in whether it is true or false or could be.
Is this therefore begging the question?
All ball bearings are ball bearings is begging the question but it happens to be true.
Therefore one cannot say that all things which have a beginning is necessarily false. Therefore we cannot say we have 'demolished' the premise.
Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass?I beg your pardon
Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass?
I beg your pardon
Ooh you are awful, but I like you.
I think you need to do some work on understanding fallacies, Vlad: whether an argument results in a true conclusion or not is irrelevant to whether or not the form of the argument being used is fallacious, and if it is then the argument can be dispensed with - so we can simply dispense with the KCA.I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.
If you want to argue for what the KCA concludes then you need a different (and non-fallacious) argument.
P.S. 'All ball bearings are ball bearings' isn't an argument.
Can you answer the simple question?Bonkers.
Do you believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass?
It is a yes or no answer.
Bonkers.
I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.
The situation is that Hillside has said the universe began, railed back on that, suggested I was wrong in talking about origins yet suggested I consult Hawking on the origin of the universe and all the time we know we cannot finally demolish the premises or the conclusions of the Kalam cosmological argument since we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.
Unless you are arguing that the universe could not have had a beginning because the KCA is begging the question, of course.
This is really simple, and shows you previous errors quite clearly.what errors.
Why can you not answer this simple question?
As ever you don't understand what is being said to you here: the KCA can be 'demolished' because it is fallacious:Yes Gordon but what are the consequences of that since the premises nor the conclusion seem to be proved to be wrong or right?
Yes Gordon but what are the consequences of that since the premises nor the conclusion seem to be proved to be wrong or right?
what errors.
Antitheism had a little wankfest verbal game going on which it thought did for theism because it sounded clever. You are merely indulging in the same thing. You have admitted that you do not know whether the universe had a beginning or whether it has been around for ever. You have admitted that you do not know whether everything which has a beginning has a cause. That puts you therefore exactly in the same position as myself. And yet you and Gordon are trumping up some extra dimension on which you think I can be caught out on and in your desperation are asking me to say whether I believe your lawn has an equal or odd number of blades of grass?
I think we've arrived at the heart of the antitheist tragedy don't you?
I can't see any consequences other than noting that the KCA is a bad argument:Got there in the end.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
1) It is impossible now the universe is in existence to demonstrate that even if anything did apparently pop out of nothing that it didn't in fact come from somewhere else in the universe. Therefore that it has a beginning could not be demonstrated.
It would not qualify as something that we knew whether it had a beginning and would therefore not disprove or prove the initial premise.
The challenge here then is to name something which has a beginning but has no cause.
2) contentious since this is not observed and the universe could be eternal but the challenge is to name something in the universe which is eternal.
3) The challenge here is to name something in the universe which creates itself even if we apparently observe things popping out of nothing we cannot demonstrate that they have not come from somewhere else.
4)Since that which is created is the universe and nothing within it is not conclusively observed not to have a cause then whatever created it is not the universe.
5) The creator then exists.
I suspect there are unresolved elements so perhaps posters can add to the analysis.
Leaving aside that the KCA doesn't have steps 4 and 5 which you have added here, the issue wit one isn't about whether the universe began to exist but whether you can demonstrate the validity of the premise. In the absence of that demonstration the entire argument falls.That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.
That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.And until it is demonstrated as being true it's a bad argument.
I thought we had agreed that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of the premise.
And until it is demonstrated as being true it's a bad argument.And i'm disputing that where exactly?
That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.
I thought we had agreed that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of the premise.
You need to be careful with the term 'prove', Vlad - and since I've taken the view that the KCA is a fallacious argument then I don't agree that it can either 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As I said: you need a better argument than the KCA.Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.
And i'm disputing that where exactly?Good, glad to see you think the KCA has been demolished.
Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.Ah a non sequitur!
Good, glad to see you think the KCA has been demolished.But the premises and conclusions haven't. Not much of a victory is it.
Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.
Ah a non sequitur!Not really. If you have 'demolished' one argument on the premise of saying probability and observation is no argument you've 'demolished' them all.
But the premises and conclusions haven't. Not much of a victory is it.
Nice try at diversion by changing the subject - but far too obvious, Vlad, and I for one won't bite. So: back to the KCA, do you now accept that the KCA is a bad argument?Once you have 'demolished one argument on the grounds that observation and probability you've demolished them all.
It is a total victory, Vlad: the KCA is a crap argument.Again, demonstrate where I said it was a good argument.
Not really. If you have 'demolished' one argument on the premise of saying probability and observation is no argument you've 'demolished' them all.
VladToday yeess.
You brought up the KCA today: nobody else did,
Not really. If you have 'demolished' one argument on the premise of saying probability and observation is no argument you've 'demolished' them all.Didn't say that. You appear not to understand syllogistic logic.
But the premises and conclusions haven't. Not much of a victory is it.Since the first premise hasn't be demonstrated everything following it fails. It's like you have tried to build a couple of floors on top of non-existent ground floor.
Today yeess.
How is that the same as saying it was a good argument?
And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.
Well, in #1102 you say:Then you ignored deliberately or due to incompetence my previous declarations that I did not claim to know whether the universe had a beginning or not.
Sounds to me like the words of a KCA enthusiast!
I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.
The situation is that Hillside has said the universe began, railed back on that, suggested I was wrong in talking about origins yet suggested I consult Hawking on the origin of the universe and all the time we know we cannot finally demolish the premises or the conclusions of the Kalam cosmological argument since we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.
Unless you are arguing that the universe could not have had a beginning because the KCA is begging the question, of course.
Then you ignored deliberately or due to incompetence my previous declarations that I did not claim to know whether the universe had a beginning or not.
Then why were you advancing the cause, albeit hopelessly, of a hopeless argument that proposes the universe began to exist?Demonstrate me 'advancing the cause' rather than stating I did not know.
Perhaps you hadn't really thought it through very well: that would be my guess.
Demonstrate me 'advancing the cause' rather than stating I did not know.
As opposed to the antitheist position where you defend the universe having a start when it suits and arguing it is eternal when it suits.
Well in your #1163 you set out the argument as developed by you with, as NS pointed, a couple of additions - I'd say you were certainly raising the profile of the KCA in this discussion without perhaps thinking it through before getting stuck in.Yes and I raised a number of challenges with it and flagged up contentious points. In other words I did what you guys didn't have cojones to do although I notice Hillside has posted something.
Neither does hypothesising a god to create it.
That the universe is or could be eternal does not eventually answer the question, ''why something and not nothing?''
Yes and I raised a number of challenges with it and flagged up contentious points. In other words I did what you guys didn't have cojones to do although I notice Hillside has posted something.
If you say the universe began anywhere you should surely say your grounds. Bluehillside has claimed the KCM is demolished.
What then are his grounds for saying the universe began and that it didn't?
My emboldening.
The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case
Vladdo,
Even by your dismal standards that’s already a strong contender for stupidest post of the day.
First, “science” can already tell us a lot about the origin of the universe and there’s no reason to think that its remarkable progress in that area won’t continue.
Yes and I raised a number of challenges with it and flagged up contentious points. In other words I did what you guys didn't have cojones to do although I notice Hillside has posted something.
If you say the universe began anywhere you should surely say your grounds. Bluehillside has claimed the KCM is demolished.
What then are his grounds for saying the universe began and that it didn't?
We've discussed (and 'demolished') the KCA before - perhaps you'd forgotten!I'm sorry but your approach has for me been perfectly predictable but of little consequence personally
On the subject of how the Universe began my position is 'don't know': but don't confuse that with the KCA, which has been soundly 'demolished' simply because it is a crap argument.
I'm sorry but your approach has for me been perfectly predictable but of little consequence personally
To get Hillside to finally agree that there is no way of establishing whether the universe has a beginning is the trophy I was after.
[Vladdo,
Even by your dismal standards that’s already a strong contender for stupidest post of the day.
First, “science” can already tell us a lot about the origin of the universe and there’s no reason to think that its remarkable progress in that area won’t continue.
To get Hillside to finally agree that there is no way of establishing whether the universe has a beginning is the trophy I was after.
Gentleman. I think there is one thing we can agree on
The world is a stage.....The stage is a world ofEntertainment[/b][/font]
Yes if everyone stops posting Vlad will stop..........great idea what?
It will continue as long a there is one person willing to respond to Vlad's posts.
Any response to Vlad is what he requires, his raison d'etre - ignore him and he will have no reason to post anything.
Vladdo,
Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about it, but no-one suggests that the explanation so far is complete. Is that a “shortfall” in science itself? There’s no reason to think so – rather it’s more likely a shortfall in as far as science has taken us so far.
Vladdo the logically challenged,
The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case...
Vladdo,
Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about it, but no-one suggests that the explanation so far is complete. Is that a “shortfall” in science itself? There’s no reason to think so – rather it’s more likely a shortfall in as far as science has taken us so far.
Vladdo the logically challenged,
The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case...
You raise one fair point out of two here. Religionists don't know/have proof whether the universe is eternal or created ex nihilo.
The Aristotelian and Thomist arguments though are designed to work for either eventuality.......Not many antitheist people know that.
That the universe is or could be eternal does not eventually answer the question, ''why something and not nothing?''
Correct: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Hebrews 11:3
Yes, but how do we know that you are right?
Also, if you are right, why is there a god rather than no god?
There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question.
So the answer to my first question is "we don't know that we are right, it's just a guess" and the answer to the second question is "we don't know".For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.
For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.
In terms of God I experience God even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of God. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure Spud will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.
Hope that helps.
Vladdo,
For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.
In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.
Hope that helps.
Still, provided neither of is are daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.
Vladdo,Fred doesn't post here Hillside. He must be a good friend since he is entertaining the Leprechaun thing. Fred and I take it in turns entertaining you.
For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.
In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.
Hope that helps.
Still, provided neither of is daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.
An objective fact is an objective fact even if nobody believes it Hillside.
Your tragedy is of course the possibility of a creator or a divine answer to the question why something and not nothing.
Where we have two entities then we can exercise probability. Leprechauns are more likely to have been made up. So much so that we can risk calling you a complete numpty for believing them.
Vladdo,Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?
Whoosh!
Your problem here being that you no more have a means to demonstrate that your personal belief "God" is an objective fact than I can demonstrate that my personal belief "Colin the leprechaun" is an objective fact.
Gibberish.
Oh dear. Why on earth would you think them to be more likely to be made up than your pick of the available god beliefs? Absent any kind of cogent argument for either faith belief, the "numptiness" is equally distributed.
Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?
Were they Irish, have green suits and smoked their pipes upside down?
Were you napping and woke up as the news was reporting Ken Dodds funeral?
Vladdo,
For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.
In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.
Hope that helps.
Still, provided neither of is daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.
From a theist viewpoint here you are comparing apples with dogs. The little people would be created, nor creator. They can’t be used to answer questions about our existence, as god can.
It’s much more interesting to consider why this god and not that.
Why Jesus and not Gaia for example. Christianity itself could be seen as a form of polytheism with its different gods - vengeful, jealous, loving, radical, just etc. Which god people end up experiencing depends on their own personalities and life experiences in turn.
If there is a moderator reading I don't understand, when there are specific leprechological threads, and when topics are usually directed to the appropriate thread, why Hillside is just able to go wither he will and leave steaming piles of Leprechology.
This is the Christianity thread is it not?
Vladdo,Yes and whenever you say that the moderators usually jump because the forum is run for your benefit.
I see your mistake here. If you want to discuss Christianity of the "isn't god great?" variety we have a faith sharing area for that.
Yes and whenever you say that the moderators usually jump because the forum is run for your benefit.
. This area though includes the epistemology of Christian beliefs, so using analogies to examine that is perfectly legitimate.Yes and I suppose we have to allow for your shite analogies.
Yes and I suppose we have to allow for your shite analogies.
Vlad,
Then why not try to explain why they're "shite" rather than just spit the dummy?
Vlad,There are categorical differences between creator and created.
Why not try to explain why they're "shite" rather than just spit the dummy?
Vladdo,I'm glad you agree with me.
... The chances of me persuading the Mods to jump to anything are about the same as those of you constructing a logically cogent argument.
Vladdo,Rhiannon spotted your error and you have entered aanother cycle of ego protection.
You’ve had this mistake explained to you countless times yet still you make it. Why?
Yet again: the characteristics attached to an outcome tell you nothing about the quality of the argument that leads to it.
Now write that down 100 times until it sinks in.
What you’re doing here is equivalent to making an argument for unicorns, me saying that it’s a bad argument because it works just as well for dragons, and you replying “ah but dragons don’t have a horn in the middle of their heads do they?” As if that somehow made the bad validating argument into a good one.
It’s just bad reasoning and you should stop doing it.
I corrected you in plain terms.What correction? bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.
You just ignored the correction in favour of more diversionary gibberish.
Why?
What correction? bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.
Where you are fault is your equation of Leprechauns and God . We will have all seen you elevate the Little chaps from Contingent to necessary and your employment of horses laugh fallacy.
So if you understand about bad arguments, why did you mention the Kalam?I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.
I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.
What correction?
…bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.
Where you are fault is your equation of Leprechauns and God .
We will have all seen you elevate the Little chaps from Contingent to necessary and your employment of horses laugh fallacy.
I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.
Just been musing on Vladistic special pleading. It goes something like this:
Special pleading 1: I cannot know whether the universe is eternally old or had a beginning, of even if the question has meaning as time itself is a property of the universe. Nonetheless I’m going to assert it to have had a beginning,
Special pleading 2: I’m going to exempt my creator from all the objections I had to the universe being eternally old,
Special pleading 3: Having magicked my creator these properties and denied them to the universe, I’m also going to deny them to anything else. Therefore there cannot have been a team effort of many somethings all created ex nihiloIF IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXCLUDE EITHER, A TEAM LEADER OR, A SINGLE WILL?
VladWhen did I deny it? Because Hellooo, if I didn't denied it it is not appropriate for you to ask if I now understand it.
Do you now understand that the Kalam is a bad argument?
But Vlad, you keep saying that the premises haven't been demolished. The point is rather that they haven't been supported or demonstrated.Which in a syllogistic argument means it fails as it isn't demonstrated as true. The KCA is valid but until demonstrated as true it is not valud, hence it is a bad argument and is dependent on your use of language 'demolished'. If the first premise 'that everything that begins to exist has a cause' is not demonstrated as tr u then any following premise and conclusion collapses.
The initial premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since that appears not demonstrated anything about whether the universe begin to exists is irrelevant.
The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning.
SHOW ME WHERE I ASSERT THIS.
I HAVE EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE UNIVERSE BEING ETERNALLY OLD.
IF IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXCLUDE EITHER, A TEAM LEADER OR, A SINGLE WILL?
Also I see the issue as you dismissing God as impossible because he has 'magicked' properties such as eternality, self creation but being happy for the universe to have them and that my friend is special pleading on your part.
Hi Rhi,
Not really. If you want to assume a “creator” why stop at just one? You could postulate one with no antecedent or a trillion with no antecedents with equal facility – after all, if you want to magic one creator out of the infinite regress problem why not do the same for lots of them?
The point here too of course is the one Vlad always ignores – namely that if an argument works equally for god and for leprechauns then it’s probably a bad argument. Ascribing different characteristics to them (universe creating vs dancing) doesn’t change that.
Well, why this belief about a god rather than that belief about a god I’d have thought but ok…
Well yes. Assuming that some theistic beliefs have done well when others haven’t must mean that the former are true and the latter aren’t is just your common-or-garden survivorship bias. It also presents Christians who think that way with a problem given that their suite of beliefs are believed by fewer people than believe in different ones.
Vladdo,You are just underlining your completeness at sea and that you haven't been reading the thread. I have never leaned on Lane Craig I even took part in a lengthy debate during which I never asserted the universe could not be eternal or asserted that the universe had to have a beginning.
Ah but the problem here Vlad is your inconsistency - at various times you've attempted pretty much every dodgy argument in the William Lane Craig playbook plus a few more besides, then at other times you'll tell us that you don't believe them to be true at all. You change your positions on these arguments as often than you change what you mean by "god" - that is, a lot.
Which of your various and mutually contradictory positions are we supposed to cite therefore?
And the lying just pours out of you doesn't it. Given how much time I've spent here saying precisely the opposite of that - ie, there's no way to decide that something is "impossible", be it your god or my leprechauns - I wonder why you bother with it. It's a bit like your lying about me supposedly comparing god with leprechauns I suppose - you just can't help yourself.
The thing about a creator god vs something created is that a created thing should leave tangible evidence - a unicorn hoof print, a leprechaun hat. Even if extinct there should be bones.
But a hidden creator god has no physical form.
And yes, I do get the logic of the argument but for a theist you are dealing with concepts that are so far apart as to be barely worth consideration. Essentially a created thing - even one we believe to be mythical - would be natural, whereas god is supernatural. Why this Creator and not that is a much more interesting question.
‘Beliefs in’... well I guess many people add ‘beliefs’ to stuff about god, but essentially it’s experiential. I experience the universe as pantheistic, I don’t ‘belueve’ it as that is an interctual exercise that I don’t feel the need for. But yes, survivorship bias is why the many gods all turn out to be Christian, when someone experiences something they search to find a framework in which to understand it and in our culture Christianity is the first stopping off point, at least for now. Even the divine feminine and polytheism can be satisfied within it.
You are just underlining your completeness at sea and that you haven't been reading the thread. I have never leaned on Lane Craig I even took part in a lengthy debate during which I never asserted the universe could not be eternal or asserted that the universe had to have a beginning.
Explain why you think a theist depends on the universe having a beginning.
Also you haven't engaged with my observations concerning divine team efforts.
rather it just means that you’ve found an explanatory narrative (usually culturally determined) that explains the experience to your satisfaction.Too heavy a reliance on explanation. That is consistent with your apparent belief that things somehow only exist if there is an explanation for it.....Come back on that Good buddy.
The thing is that although the argument works for me and you it won’t for a theist. You aren’t comparing them but you are using both in an argument where you are comparing beliefs in one with the other and that is where theists stop listening. After all, they’ve outgrown the tooth fairy but god is still around. Personally I think it far more challenging to ask a theist to explain why their god and not another.
Too heavy a reliance on explanation.
That is consistent with your apparent belief that things somehow only exist if there is an explanation for it.....
Come back on that Good buddy.
Vladdo,..........is fascination with antitheists?
Absent a method of any kind to test your claims (the point at which you always run away remember?), "an explanation" is all you have.
He lied. Again.
No doubt many things exist for which we have no explanation. Your problem though - .
Rhi,
But there's a deep, Vladistic dishonesty about that because I'm not comparing the beliefs at all. Far from it. Rather I'm comparing the arguments that validate the beliefs - and pointing out that when the same argument produces equally "god" and leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument. Vlad in particular will never engage with that and resorts instead to telling lies about what's being compared, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter one jot.
But if you use terms like ‘leprechaunists’ you are blurring the lines. And people do believe in leprechauns and fairies and dragons. You and I know it’s an intellectual exercise demonstrating arguments but to a believer you are comparing things that people believe it believed in. It’s not simply dishonesty for most theists; you are comparing something that is very real to them with something that isn’t. And because there are beliefs about both that is usually where a believer will focus, and it certainly gives the vlads a get-out clause.
The thing that I will always find baffling is why is actually matters. Why not just shrug and say yeah, it’s a shit argument but it works for me so why not?
You are misunderstanding me, Blue. What I don’t get is why it matters to Vlad (and indeed AB and others) to ‘prove’ themselves by trying to win unwinnable arguments. The only way to even come close is by distorting the truth, evasion and goalpost moving. It’s not fun for them and it’s not an especially peaceful way to live. So why bother?
You are misunderstanding me, Blue. What I don’t get is why it matters to Vlad (and indeed AB and others) to ‘prove’ themselves by trying to win unwinnable arguments. The only way to even come close is by distorting the truth, evasion and goalpost moving. It’s not fun for them and it’s not an especially peaceful way to live. So why bother?Hillside needs opposed because an inappropriate control freakery (who and where does he think he is?) coupled with a facile naturalism, shite analogy, category rogering, bolstered by unthinking posse-ism is the last thing that should be normalised......IMHO.
Hillside needs opposed otherwise an inappropriate control freakery (who and where does he think he is?) coupled with a facile naturalism bolstered by unthinking posseism is the last thing that should be normalised......IMHO.
Rhi,Blue,
Oh I see - sorry. Well there's the evangelising aspect I suppose, plus the Violet Elizabeth Bott need ("it's twoo I tell you, it'th twoo!") as if other people agreeing helps validate their personal beliefs. There's also perhaps an attempt at least to justify why their beliefs should be afforded special privileges, though the effort always fails it seems to me. Safer just to say "it's traditional innit?" and leave it at that I'd have thought.
I'm struck sometimes too when people like Vlad complain that leprechauns are obviously made up - apparently unaware that some of us find his god to be every bit as made up - as if we should afford his faith belief more respect because it happens to have the label "god". Odd.
Blue,
Are leprechauns supposed to explain some phenomenon, in the same way that God is the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? I'm afraid I don't agree with your comparison.
God's existence is testable, through prayer. Presumably leprechauns existence is testable too in some way.
Are leprechauns supposed to explain some phenomenon, in the same way that God is the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? I'm afraid I don't agree with your comparison.
God's existence is testable, through prayer. Presumably leprechauns existence is testable too in some way.
God's existence is testable, through prayer.
that outcomes following prayers to your god happen more frequently than outcomes following prayers to my leprechauns?Prayers from YGS are not credible given your views on the supernatural.
Prayersfrom YGSare not crediblegiven your views on the supernatural.
Prayers from YGS are not credible given your views on the supernatural.
Maybe leprechauns are in hiding like god!God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?
On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
That’s a remarkable claim – what makes you think it’s true? What evidence do you have that prayed for outcomes happen more frequently than outcomes that are not prayed for, or indeed that outcomes following prayers to your god happen more frequently than outcomes following prayers to my leprechauns?
Bluehillside,
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.
-----
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.
God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?
On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
Vladdo,You aren't credible.
FIFY
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.
You aren't credible.
Vladdo,Any occasion when your posts are being read is nap time. Apparently they are available in Boots next to the Horlicks.
Isn't it your nap time now?
Any occasion when your posts are being read is nap time. Apparently they are available in Boots next to the Horlicks.
Do you now accept that the KALAM argument is useless.I asked you to point out whenever I didn't and you failed to.
I asked you to point out whenever I didn't and you failed to.
You've got some nerve as an antitheist trying this on on an antitheist site.
Vladdo,Is this post the normal or extra strength sedative.
But a lot less nerve I'd have thought than someone who's enthusiastically supported it in the past,
Is this post the normal or extra strength sedative.
Oh yes and where was this done?
Why should a theist support KCA Hillside?
Vladdo,Sorry my position has always been clear and public. The universe could have suddenly popped out of nothing, been created ex nihilo or be eternal, eternality of course not able to answer the question why something rather than nothing.
Evasion noted.
In the extensive discussions we had about the KCA. Have you resiled from the other hopeless WLC arguments you used to support too by the way (objective morality etc) or just from the KCA?
Because it's an argument (albeit a bad one) for god, obviously.
Sorry my position has always been clear and public. The universe could have suddenly popped out of nothing, been created ex nihilo or be eternal, eternality of course not able to answer the question why something rather than nothing.
I have never commented on WLC except to note the antitheist fallacy Argumentum ad Lane Craig, whereby because WLC is evil everything he says is wrong.
Vladdo,I can't say anymore than I have done. Some evidence of what you are saying usually goes down. You don't seem to have provided any.
The lying is strong here. At various times you've enthusiastically asserted various very bad arguments that WLC also propounds (sometimes while referencing him, sometimes not) and when you've been undone you've either ignored or lied about the refutations and rebuttals. It's what you do. Thus the KCA, the negative proof fallacy, the objective morality mistake, the teleological argument, the ad pop, the argumentum ad consequentiam - you name it, you've tried all of them at various times. Because your positions flip-flop so much it's impossible to know which you actually subscribe to (if any) at any point in time, and which you don't (if any) at any point in time so it's all (rather uninteresting) guessing with you.
Oh, and speaking of lying you've had explained already several times that asking "why something rather than nothing?" is (yet) another error because it begs the question - you'd need to demonstrate first something to decide on a "why?". Ask how as much as you like, but "why?" isn't valid. Why you repeat the lie is anyone's guess, but there it is nonetheless.
He lied, and of course no-one argues that because he's so odious his arguments must be wrong - that's just (yet) another of your straw men.
I can't say anymore than I have done. Some evidence of what you are saying usually goes down. You don't seem to have provided any.
Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.
-----
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.
For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.So why criticise those people who profess not to know why there is a Universe rather than no Universe.
In terms of God I experience God even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of God. You or indeed anyone will not get that butI experience the Universe everyday. I do not, however, experience God at all.
Hope that helps.
I am sure Spud will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.
Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?
So why criticise those people who profess not to know why there is a Universe rather than no Universe.Where am I criticising people who don't know Jeremy?
I experience the Universe everyday. I do not, however, experience God at all.
Where am I criticising people who don't know Jeremy?This thread amongst others.
What I do criticise is people saying I don't know but I know it's not etc.Who's that then?
What I do criticise is people saying I don't know but I know it's not etc.
Vladdo,
One of your favourite lies that one. Be nice if one day you could finally sort out the difference between, "you've provided no sound reasons to think it's X" and "it's not X" - ie the difference between what people here actually say and your straw man version of it - but it's probably not a good idea to hold my breath on that. Ah well.
Second, you have no comparables. To demonstrate that your god would take time out from giving malaria to African babies so as to find your nephew’s hamster you’d need to show what happened when the hamster got lost and you didn’t pray for it to be found. Lots of times in fact so as to eliminate the problem of silent evidence – ie, you have to include the misses as well as the hits in your data set if you want to claim evidence.The problem with making this a scientific study (comparing the results with not praying for an outcome) is that you risk losing the hamster, which is not an option because you care about it. This wasn't an experiment but a matter of life and death (and of having a dead rodent decomposing under the floorboards). I'm surprised that tests involving not praying for a patient were allowed to go ahead, because that crosses an ethical line in my opinion.
Third, given the fact of terrible things in the world happening to innocent people your god bothering to find a hamster rather than, say, cure someone of childhood leukaemia would tell us that “he’s” anything but benevolent which, as I understand it, is one of the tenets of your faith. That it was your cousin’s hamster rather than yours is neither here nor there by the way – presumably he was as pleased that you found it as he would have been had he found it for himself and your reward was his being pleased with you for finding it.
And that’s your problem with claiming the efficacy of prayer as evidence for “god” – no-one has ever been able to show that it is effective. Such studies as there have been find that praying or not praying makes no difference whatever to the outcomes (in fact one study of patients in a hospital who were told that they were being prayed for suggested the that they actually did slightly worse!). Sorry, but it’s just nonsense.
The problem with making this a scientific study (comparing the results with not praying for an outcome) is that you risk losing the hamster, which is not an option because you care about it.
This wasn't an experiment but a matter of life and death (and of having a dead rodent decomposing under the floorboards). I'm surprised that tests involving not praying for a patient were allowed to go ahead, because that crosses an ethical line in my opinion.
I can't prove to you either that I did pray or that the prayer was what made the hamster come out in the night and take the bait (which was balanced on a spoon that was supporting an upturned yellow bowl such that when he put his front feet on the spoon the bowl came down over him). I just know that I did, and we still have the hamster. I am more careful now so he doesn't escape. (I didn't realize at first how sneaky he could be).
Bluehillside,
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
Ps, the hamster required trapping with bait, as he had escaped down a hole under the floorboards.
If someone has terminal cancer and is prayed for, and the cancer disappears, you can't prove that it was the result of prayer, but it seems likely. Whether that sort of thing ever happens is another question.
Terminal cancer - prayer - no cancer. It could be spontaneous remission - such things do happen, though its very rare - but a causal connection seems likely.
Maeght,
The usual get out of jail free card is that god works in mysterious ways or some such, or (disgustingly) that the person who died wasn’t deserving of god’s intervention.
That’s called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy Steve. There’s nothing “likely” about it at all.I am aware of that fallacy, but you can't push it to extremes and say that there is never any causal relationship. You might as well say that someone recovering from cancer after chemotherapy was a coincidence.
Also, if someone prays for someone with terminal cancer and they still die, what do you conclude from that?Ditto if someone has chemotherapy and still dies. I did say that whether it ever happens (healing after prayer) is another question. I don't rule the possibility out completely, but if it happens at all, it is very rare. I was, to my shame, a Charisatic Christian for 15 years. I eventually gave it up because of the large amount of prayer for healing and the non-existant actual healings that couldn't be ascribed to medicine or natural processes or self-deception.
Ditto if someone has chemotherapy and still dies. I did say that whether it ever happens (healing after prayer) is another question. I don't rule the possibility out completely, but if it happens at all, it is very rare. I was, to my shame, a Charisatic Christian for 15 years. I eventually gave it up because of the large amount of prayer for healing and the non-existant actual healings that couldn't be ascribed to medicine or natural processes or self-deception.
Just saying ditto is not an answer. What conclusion do you drawer if such prayers are not answered?The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.
I am aware of that fallacy, but you can't push it to extremes and say that there is never any causal relationship. You might as well say that someone recovering from cancer after chemotherapy was a coincidence.
The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.
The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.
Steve H,I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?
Two errors there - shifting of the burden of proof and dismissal of evidence.
For the former, no-one says that there's necessarily never a causal relationship - with praying and with singing Ricky Martin songs alike - because there's no way to eliminate the possibility of it working just as a matter of a lucky guess. What's actually said though is that there's no evidence to suggest that praying (or singing Ricky Martin) has any effect whatever. The burden of proof however is with those who would assert a causal relationship.
For the latter, that's flat wrong because you can test the effect of chemotherapy and obtain results that show that the test group who had it recover more frequently than the group who don't. Testing prayer on the other hand produces no such results.
I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?
I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?
I am of the opinion prayer might act as a placebo, and may help in the healing process, which is instigated by the medics. As I have asked so many times, if god can heal people why does it only so when in the mood?I am of the opinion that Little Roses has actually said something sensible for once. Pity she spoiled it with her predictable second sentence.
I don't absolutely rule out the possibility, but it probably doesn't, except perhaps via the placebo effect.
Probably. Who cares?
How did you calculate the odds of being able to recapture the hamster without prayer?At the time, I wasn't thinking of it as an experiment.
I find it amazing that anyone actually thinks God intervenes to rescue a hamster!
At the time, I wasn't thinking of it as an experiment.
It was a case of knowing I needed help to get out of a mess, having let him escape.
Regarding the issue of why God doesn't heal every person prayed for from disease, suffering etc. It seems God actually wants us to pray,....
.... because even if he choses not to heal someone he will.always bless in response to prayer.
He wants us to rely on him.
If there was no suffering, everyone would forget he existed and all would be ultimately condemned.
Probably. Who cares?
If someone has terminal cancer and is prayed for, and the cancer disappears, you can't prove that it was the result of prayer, but it seems likely.No it doesn't.
You might as well say that someone recovering from cancer after chemotherapy was a coincidence.
I am of the opinion prayer might act as a placebo, and may help in the healing process, which is instigated by the medics.As has already been mentioned above, one of the few studies showed a slightly negative effect of prayer on people who knew they were being prayed for.
I don't absolutely rule out the possibility, but it probably doesn't, except perhaps via the placebo effect.Just to clarify, in post 1300 you said that the prayer having an effect seems likely. Your recent posts, however, suggest that you believe the opposite ie. it actually seems unlikely. Is there perhaps a typo in reply 1300?
I have given a number of possible answers based on what is currently known but actually it's totally irrelevant to any question of the existence of some god - it's up to those people who propose the idea (or any idea) to provide some reason to take it seriously.
You started off with the universe looking like it's designed for life (which it isn't),
then it was that order needed explaining but you can't explain an ordered god and now it seems to be down to the ever shrinking god of the gaps.
I will return to my point that a god is (at best) a baseless guess that explains nothing; it just changes the subject of the question. Instead of why this universe exists, it becomes why this god exists.
I think I was referring to the fine tuning of the universe, which seems to be an accepted fact.
Because he (if he exists) made us, God is by definition not possible to fathom completely - we can understand how his creation works, but not its origin - so what if something else created God? There's no way we can ever find out unless he tells us.
Thus the point that order in the universe suggests a creator still stands.
And my point was that having inferred this, the next step is to ask him to reveal himself.
I don't think fine tuning is a fact. For one thing, do we know what the conditions for life might be? There might be all kinds of life which can arise, which are nothing like earth life.
There is also an interesting point about God and fine tuning - why would he bother? Why not just create life? This also relates to stuff like quantum mechanics - is the proposal that God has created electrons to be wave-like? Again, why would he do that?Dunno
"Certainly an all-powerful creator could have made a universe delicately balanced to produce life. But he also could have made life exist in any kind of universe whatsoever, with no delicate balancing act necessary. So if the universe is, in fact, fine-tuned to support life, it is more—not less—likely to have had a natural origin."OK up to the last sentence which Stenger seems to pull out of a hat.
Stenger, 'The Fallacy of Fine Tuning'.
OK up to the last sentence which Stenger seems to pull out of a hat.
Also the idea of nature having a natural origin suggests self creation. He cannot therefore avoid invoking the multiverse making his claim to be considering fine tuning a bit suspect.
How is it fine tuned?Fine tuning means that there are constants and that they aren't wobbling about all over the place.
How do you know the 'constants' could have any other value?
Fine tuning means that there are constants and that they aren't wobbling about all over the place.
In other words we can turn your question around and ask ''why these values and no other?'' since Stenger suggests a natural cause that seems to be a fair question?
If of course a constant could be observed changing.........then we would know that they could.
We don't know that they can change, and we don't know they could have any other values.Yep.
We don't know, seems to be a theme here.
Fine tuning means that there are constants and that they aren't wobbling about all over the place.
In other words we can turn your question around and ask ''why these values and no other?'' since Stenger suggests a natural cause that seems to be a fair question?
If of course a constant could be observed changing.........then...
...we would know that they could.
No it doesn't.
No it isn't. "How" is legitimate but "why" isn't because it begs the question of a "something" to decide on the why a priori.
No it doesn't.
You are talking shit.
There is also an interesting point about God and fine tuning - why would he bother? Why not just create life? This also relates to stuff like quantum mechanics - is the proposal that God has created electrons to be wave-like? Again, why would he do that?
Vladdo,No it doesn't......... that, I move, is just a fanatical antitheistic mind working overtime.
Yes it does. That's what the word "why" entails - a reason, a purpose etc.
'Why' is question begging, since it means 'for what purpose'? Hang on, who has said that there is one?Sorry Mr Zen....i'll use the word How in the presence of ''you people''.
'Why' is question begging, since it means 'for what purpose'? Hang on, who has said that there is one?But then you don't know that there isn't a why so insisting it is expunged is acting in large part like an atheist with a massive entitlement complex.
No it doesn't.........
...that, I move, is just a fanatical antitheistic mind working overtime.
Sorry Mr Zen....i'll use the word How in the presence of ''you people''.
"Q: Why did Mary go to the shops?"Would be acceptable. I think you are doing linguistic piracy.
"A: because she was predetermined to do so by purely naturalistic processes
But then you don't know that there isn't a why...
...so insisting it is expunged is acting in large part like an atheist with a massive entitlement complex.
Vladdo,Fucking shite, Hillside, you could only get away with it on this forum which exists in it's own bubble universe.
More stupidity. The "why" question gives you the burden of proof problem as it begs the question of a purposive agent
Would be acceptable. I think you are doing linguistic piracy.
Dictionary definition includes Cause.
Wigginhall and The Side caught talking rubbish.
Fucking shite, Hillside, you could only get away with it on this forum which exists in it's own bubble universe.
Vladdo,Why is what is the cause, what is the reason.
Then you think wrongly. Using words correctly rather than wrongly isn't piracy, it's just using words correctly rather than wrongly.
You should try it.
No, Vlad. If I say, 'why is the kettle on?', that usually means 'for what purpose'.No wiggs 'why is the kettle on?'' A short circuit switched it on.
Why is what is the cause, what is the reason.
Vladdo,Yes, Cause.
You're getting there. Now focus on that word "reason"...
No wiggs 'why is the kettle on?'' A short circuit switched it on.
Yes, Cause.
Vladdo,If the question why is equivalent to asking what is the cause? why are you bringing in whose ''reason''?
Whose "reason" though?
Keep trying.
If the question why is equivalent to asking what is the cause? why are you bringing in whose ''reason''?
I think that a lot of creationists ask 'why' questions, as it enables them to smuggle in 'purpose'. For example, 'why does anything exist?', as opposed to 'for what purpose do things exist?, which is more explicit. Generally, you have to ask them what they mean by 'why'.
Hi Wiggs,
Just to add the question the 12-year-old me asked (and has still never had answered): why too would a god concerned to install his favourite species bother with several hundred millions of years-worth of dinosaurs before getting around to us just a few seconds before midnight relatively speaking?
'Why' is question begging, since it means 'for what purpose'? Hang on, who has said that there is one?
I think that a lot of creationists ask 'why' questions, as it enables them to smuggle in 'purpose'. For example, 'why does anything exist?', as opposed to 'for what purpose do things exist?, which is more explicit. Generally, you have to ask them what they mean by 'why'.Zen lunacy
Zen lunacy
Thank you for that detailed and complex reply. As you may appreciate, I will need some time to deal with all the points that you bring up.
Hi Wiggs,Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?
Just to add the question the 12-year-old me asked (and has still never had answered): why too would a god concerned to install his favourite species bother with several hundred millions of years-worth of dinosaurs before getting around to us just a few seconds before midnight relatively speaking?
Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?
Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?
To summarise, the ToE is as well supported as the theory that women give birth to babies.
I am an evolutionist but I would like a citation for the above. Since there are several billion people born and millions more if we include the other mammals (except the monotremata) I am not sure Evolution can claim such a weight of evidence.Evolution is pretty well proven, but BHS was being a bit hyperbolic, certainly.
Unless Hillside can prove his statement he disserves science with such hyperbolic provocative triumphalism.
Evolution is pretty well proven, but BHS was being a bit hyperbolic, certainly.Yes with the emphasis on the Bolic.
There are differences between the rare fossils of bats and modern bats.Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.
There is no issue with little change within species over long periods of time since changes only become established if they give an advantage when it comes to survical (of those modified genes).So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?
There is no evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.
Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution of course.I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.
Don't know much about bats, but horses are a well-known example of big changes via evolution. I think they were dog-sized originally, but went through changes in size, shape of teeth, shape of feet, habitat, and so on. I can't remember how many species have existed, but several hundred I think, Equus is the only surviving genus (I think).A skeleton of the first so-called horse (Eohippus) is shown here:
Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?
I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.
I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.
A skeleton of the first so-called horse (Eohippus) is shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eohippus#/media/File:HyracotheriumVasacciensisLikeHorse.JPG
Can you present evidence that this creature evolved into horses?
Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.
So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?I
I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.
I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.
I think there are clues [that dinosaurs and humans co-existed]. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.No doubt ancient and medieval people occasionally found largely complete dinosaur fossils, due to landslides and quarrying, and did their own imaginative reconstructions. That is probably where dragon legends come from.
Spud,Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation! Try saying to someone that 2+2=5 is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there is another answer!
Fifth, even if somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, that would provide not one jot of a scintilla of a smidgin of evidence for an alternative explanation.
To summarise, the ToE is as well supported as the theory that women give birth to babies.And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?
That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not hypnotising storks that are doing it but that’s the equivalent scale of the problem you'd give yourself if you dismissed the ToE out of hand in favour of an entirely unevidenced faith belief.Which is you, as ever assuming the conclusion of that which you are trying to demonstrate. You have already decided that there is no evidence for a faith belief, so you make up an analogy for which there is no evidence and link the two.
So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?Why do you think that's a problem? As long as an organism remains well adapted to its environment, natural selection acts to prevent change. If there are no environmental factors pressuring bat populations to change their physical form, their physical form will not change. That's not to say bats haven't changed over 50 million years, just that the changes didn't fossilise.
I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.You are joking aren't you? Humans and dinosaurs are separated by the best part of 65 million years.
#1384
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation!
And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?
But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.
Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.
#1384"Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian" was JBS Haldane's famous example of something that would falsify evolution. It is eminently falsifiable, but never has been falsified, because it isn't false. As for the rest of your post - what a confused and confusing mish-mash of cod-philosophy! Evolution is observable in the fossil record and in our genes. You are also, like most creationists, confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis - the origin of life. Evolution is about what happens to life after it's got started. It has nothing to sayabout how it gets started.
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation! Try saying to someone that 2+2=5 is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there is another answer!
And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?
Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.
Which is you, as ever assuming the conclusion of that which you are trying to demonstrate. You have already decided that there is no evidence for a faith belief, so you make up an analogy for which there is no evidence and link the two.
Creationists, in my view, intentionally conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Since we don't know how life started on this planet this is an attempt to cast some of that 'don't know' onto the ToE.Exactemundo.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horseIt says eohippus had an arched back, raised hind legs and multiple hooves on each limb. Regarding these characteristics, i can't make them out atm. Can you?
Do you think this summary has got it wrong?
It says eohippus had an arched back, raised hind legs and multiple hooves on each limb. Regarding these characteristics, i can't make them out atm. Can you?
To me it looks more like a deer or goat.
This description says the creature had pads on its feet (like a dog):
http://www.equestrianandhorse.com/equus/evolution.html
I am an evolutionist but I would like a citation for the above. Since there are several billion people born and millions more if we include the other mammals (except the monotremata) I am not sure Evolution can claim such a weight of evidence.
Unless Hillside can prove his statement he disserves science with such hyperbolic provocative triumphalism.
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation! Try saying to someone that 2+2=5 is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there is another answer!
And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?
Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.
Which is you, as ever assuming the conclusion of that which you are trying to demonstrate. You have already decided that there is no evidence for a faith belief, so you make up an analogy for which there is no evidence and link the two.
#1384But that hasn’t happened, has it?! It shows absolutely no sign that it will happen.
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative
explanation!
There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?That is irrelevant. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any God/spirit/etc and which you seem to claim is the *author* of life and truth? And don’t even think of talking about people living at the time of the person labelled Christ, since none of the miracle-type aspects of those stories stands up to even fairly minimal scrutiny!
Vladdo,Nothing here which can excuse you of hyperbole and category fadiddidlin
More nonsence. Leaving aside you bizarre misuse of language again, evolution is for all meaningful purposes a fact. So is childbirth. A fact is a fact – you don’t get to carve out special sub-categories of it. To falsify the ToE you’d have to have an event of unexpectedness of the order of hypnotising storks delivering babies. Not impossible in either case (nothing is) but as close to it as makes no difference.
Nothing here which can excuse you of hyperbole and category fadiddidlin
It is true that ToE has not been falsified but you are wrong with equating that which can falsify ToE with hypnotising storks delivering babies or even the order of. That is your love of argumentum ad ridiculing showing through.
Were this universe a simulation as seen as reasonable by Brian Greene and Niel de Grasse Tyson then things could be simulated as is.
There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?
On that level the analogy doesn't hold up perhaps, but are you saying you only accept things which have been observed?
That is irrelevant. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any God/spirit/etc and which you seem to claim is the *author* of life and truth?I don't. However I find it somewhat interesting how much faith can be demonstrated by some when there is a lack of observable evidence to back up their claims, yet at the same time dismissing something else outright because of a lack of observable evidence.
Neither of which you can demonstrate.
You never have understood the term "analogy" have you. Perhaps if just this once you tried looking it up that might help you? Finally?Unfortunately bluehillside, the analogies used to help with the explanations also illustrate the flaws.
Unfortunately bluehillside, the analogies used to help with the explanations also illustrate the flaws.
In the analogies, that which is already present explains something else. The consistency with evolution is that it works with what is already present. Some want to take this and extrapolate to explain how that which is already present came to be. So your stork analogy illustrates the flaw, because there is no doubt where babies come from. It is observable and you do not need to be a scientist to verify it!
Unfortunately bluehillside, the analogies used to help with the explanations also illustrate the flaws.
In the analogies, that which is already present explains something else. The consistency with evolution is that it works with what is already present. Some want to take this and extrapolate to explain how that which is already present came to be. So your stork analogy illustrates the flaw, because there is no doubt where babies come from. It is observable and you do not need to be a scientist to verify it!
#1397
I don't. However I find it somewhat interesting how much faith can be demonstrated by some when there is a lack of observable evidence to back up their claims, yet at the same time dismissing something else outright because of a lack of observable evidence.
There is evidence for ToE which can be observed by anyone.
I don't. However I find it somewhat interesting how much faith can be demonstrated by some when there is a lack of observable evidence to back up their claims, yet at the same time dismissing something else outright because of a lack of observable evidence.
There is evidence for ToE which can be observed by anyone.But then you have to go further and say the evidence is but parts of a pattern which gives rise with a bit of perceptual and logical filling in to an unavoidable whole.
#1397Please state clearly and precisely what you imply and mean by that too vague comment.
I don't. However I find it somewhat interesting how much faith can be demonstrated by some when there is a lack of observable evidence to back up their claims, yet at the same time dismissing something else outright because of a lack of observable evidence.
Unfortunately bluehillside, the analogies used to help with the explanations also illustrate the flaws.
In the analogies, that which is already present explains something else. The consistency with evolution is that it works with what is already present. Some want to take this and extrapolate to explain how that which is already present came to be. So your stork analogy illustrates the flaw, because there is no doubt where babies come from. It is observable and you do not need to be a scientist to verify it!
Please state clearly and precisely what you imply and mean by that too vague comment.Hillside is trying to pass off scientific and logical assumption as the equivalent of direct observation?
But then you have to go further and say the evidence is but parts of a pattern which gives rise with a bit of perceptual and logical filling in to an unavoidable whole.
You need a modicum of scientific awareness to "observe" the ToE. After all it took one of the most highly trained, committed and experience scientists of the day to actually get it.
#1397Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution. The late, unlamented Colin Jordan said "there is not a shred of reliable evidence for the holocaust". Climate change deniers say there is no evidence for climate change. If you don't want to see the evidence, you won't. It is nevertheless there.
I don't. However I find it somewhat interesting how much faith can be demonstrated by some when there is a lack of observable evidence to back up their claims, yet at the same time dismissing something else outright because of a lack of observable evidence.
Hillside is trying to pass off scientific and logical assumption as the equivalent of direct observation?
I suppose creationists tend to dismiss 'scientific awareness', so that they can make odd claims, e.g. there is no evidence for evolution, or it is all based on 'assumptions'. It reminds me of the study of the sun, which we can now identify as a star, although maybe originally for some people, it was a deity or even a planet. We can't actually go there and examine bits of it, but astronomy advanced sufficiently, so that stars could be described, and their development, and within that field of study it became apparent that the sun is an average yellow dwarf, or perhaps a bit more white than that! But it would very odd to say that we cannot do this, as we can't directly examine the sun, or we weren't there when it began to be formed. Of course, we can examine its light and so on.If you are saying we can ignore the differences between using language to describe a direct observation and using language to form conceptual links between direct observations I think you are on dicey ground. That is why I criticise Hillside.
Perhaps you should refer your question to an expert, Spud, since what it looks like to the untrained eye might not be a particularly useful approach to take.
Only if you first assume evolution would you be so certain that eohippus was related to the horse.
It's equally likely that it wasn't the horse's ancestor, but was an unrelated species. We might, for example, think the chevrotain was the ancestor of deer if we found it only in fossil form. But in reality it isn't a true deer.
In my view it's more accurate to assume, based on fossils which look very much the same as their living relatives, that evolution from simple to complex life hasn't happened.
Only if you first assume evolution would you be so certain that eohippus was related to the horse.Palaeontologists don't just say "Eohippus looks a bit like a very small horse, so it must be the horse's ancestor"; there are much more specific details which they can track through the fossil record to modern horses, and, of course, there is now also DNA analysis, when ancient DNA can be recovered, as is sometimes the case.
It's equally likely that it wasn't the horse's ancestor, but was an unrelated species. We might, for example, think the chevrotain was the ancestor of deer if we found it only in fossil form. But in reality it isn't a true deer.
In my view it's more accurate to assume, based on fossils which look very much the same as their living relatives, that evolution from simple to complex life hasn't happened.
If you are saying we can ignore the differences between using language to describe a direct observation and using language to form conceptual links between direct observations I think you are on dicey ground. That is why I criticise Hillside.
How those differences affect a campaigning atheism that sees evolution as a central plank I neither know or care.
Steve, on the subject of vestigial organs, I have discussed this before and found that most of them have a function, thus we can't conclusively say that they are proof of evolution.
The whale's pelvic bones may be for anchoring reproductive organs, and were never for anchoring limbs.
Evolution is a big discussion and would require another thread, but in reply to your other comment: if eohippus looks like a small horse, then maybe it is a horse, just as Jack Russells and Great Danes are both dogs.
Vladdo,Since you were equating evolution with childbirth as being obvious facts. What is it you are now equating with something being shot out at the speed of a bullet?
Wrongly so. At least try to think about it – if for example you happened to see someone shooting somebody what would “direct observation” tell you without “scientific” knowledge (eg, of what a gun is) and logic (eg, of deriving a causal relationship between the sound “bang” and the sight of someone falling over).
Spud,So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?
It's only a big discussion in the sense that there's a lot to it and lots of people work in the field but not at all in the sense you imply of evolution vs creationism, any more than there's a real debate between flat earthers and the rest. Just for funsies though, why do you suppose your god would have bothered giving men nipples?
So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?OK, smart-arse: explain, from a creationist point of view, the unnecessary diversion followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Since you were equating evolution with childbirth as being obvious facts. What is it you are now equating with something being shot out at the speed of a bullet?
Evolution or childbirth?
So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?
OK, smart-arse: explain, from a creationist point of view, the unnecessary diversion followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.
It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.
It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.
It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).
It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).
Why also do we have a spleen and an appendix, both of which we can live perfectly healthily without, but whose presence endangers our lives - the appendix by getting infected and rupturing if unoperated-on, and the spleen by being ruptured in accidents and causing massive internal haemorrhageing. I am sure you'll be able to find some residual function on some fundy website - indeed, I believe the spleen has a part to play in destroying old red blood corpuscles - but they are completely inessential, and don't even offer a noticeable advantage. No intelligent designer would burden us with them.
SteveH,Very droll, but I should point out that I never use the male pronoun of God, so your sarcastic use of "he'd" including inverted commas is a little misplaced.
"He'd" also have put our shins at the back so we didn't bang them on coffee tables... ;)
Very droll, but I should point out that I never use the male pronoun of God, so your sarcastic use of "he'd" including inverted commas is a little misplaced.
Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution.Citation required...
And here, Spud, is a question for you (and any other creationists on here): If all life was created by an intelligent designer, why do ancestral traits survive in vestigial form, e.g. the hind legs of whales, present on their skeletons, but not appearing externally normally, though occasionally a whale is born with a useless external hind leg? Similarly, the vestigial human tail, also occasionally visible externally. In general, all mammals (and, to a lesser extent, all vertebrates) are built on a standard pattern: four limbs, with three long bones in each, one thick upper bone and two thinner lower bones. That's why whales have vestigial hind limbs. Human artefacts are obviously designed by intelligent designers - us - and you don't see the same thing: hoses and cars have in common that they have windows and are entered by people for extended periods, but you don't find useless, vestigial wheels on the corners of houses, nor vestigial interior walls in cars.Which is the wrong question, so I hope no creationists on here (as you so eloquently put it) waste their time on it.
Or maybe you think "god" designed women, got a bit tired after all that effort so just went to the parts bin to finish the job for us chaps?Clearly, you've not read Genesis 2 ::)
Citation required...
I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!
On the other hand, using evolution to explain how all the functionality of human beings, animals and plants came from a single common ancestor ... well, good luck with that one!
Clearly, you've not read Genesis 2 ::)
Citation required...
I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!
On the other hand, using evolution to explain how all the functionality of human beings, animals and plants came from a single common ancestor ... well, good luck with that one!
Citation required...
I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!
SteveH,
Odd reply - it was my use, there was no suggestion that it was also yours. "It" sounds a bit odd to my ears, but how people want to gender their imaginary friends isn't something I trouble with over much.
Pity you two can't bury the hatchet (and not in each others' heads). Steve is a little over-touchy - and you are very quick to pounce on him when he writes something you consider not-too-well-argued (I'd tend to criticise him for appearing to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds).
However - doncha think he's written some valid (and indeed wise) words on evolution?
Which is the wrong question, so I hope no creationists on here (as you so eloquently put it) waste their time on it.What the blazes are you on about now? Your answers get more bizarrely irrelevant with every post you make. Stop reading philosophy: it's obviously too much for you! The question is whether life was designed by an intelligent agent, and the question is relevant to that.
If all life was created by an intelligent designer, I'd be asking the intelligent designer these questions.
If all life was not created by an intelligent designer, your questions are irrelevant.
Try again...
It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).If you want to discuss this I'm happy to if you start a new thread. Just let me know where it is.
Why also do we have a spleen and an appendix, both of which we can live perfectly healthily without, but whose presence endangers our lives - the appendix by getting infected and rupturing if unoperated-on, and the spleen by being ruptured in accidents and causing massive internal haemorrhageing. I am sure you'll be able to find some residual function on some fundy website - indeed, I believe the spleen has a part to play in destroying old red blood corpuscles - but they are completely inessential, and don't even offer a noticeable advantage. No intelligent designer would burden us with them.
I’m thinking that Steve believes as I used to - you can see the logical holes, fundie Christians drive you nuts and yet you experience God as real so therefore you have no choice but to live that way. I could be wrong.Sort-of. If I was 26, I'd probably stop calling myself a Christian and become a humanist, but I'm 66, so it seems a bit late to abandon it now. Also,when I last abandoned Christianity and joined what was then called the British Humanist Association in the early 90s, I found myself becoming increasingly bitter and negative, and many of the non-believers on here seem to be, as well, so I went back to a much more liberal, minimalist, Tillichian version of the faith, and that's where I am now. I should have stuck with the Quakers - I was an attender for a few years in my early 20s.
Sort-of. If I was 26, I'd probably stop calling myself a Christian and become a humanist, but I'm 66, so it seems a bit late to abandon it now. Also,when I last abandoned Christianity and joined what was then called the British Humanist Association in the early 90s, I found myself becoming increasingly bitter and negative, and many of the non-believers on here seem to be, as well, so I went back to a much more liberal, minimalist, Tillichian version of the faith, and that's where I am now. I should have stuck with the Quakers - I was an attender for a few years in my early 20s.
I am a non believer ( in lots of things, gods included). I do not think I am bitter and negative. Quite the opposite I hope.I found myself becoming, and some non-believers on here strike me as, but I don't think all non-believers are like that.
Not sure why you think the two are related.
If you want to discuss this I'm happy to if you start a new thread. Just let me know where it is.Maybe, but if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done properly, so it'll have to wait.
I am a non believer ( in lots of things, gods included). I do not think I am bitter and negative. Quite the opposite I hope.Definitely agree.
I found myself becoming, and some non-believers on here strike me as, but I don't think all non-believers are like that.
It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.
You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.
Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.
Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.Oh, come on - you're grasping at straws now.
Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.Would you like to have a shot at explaining what that means in plain English?
Would you like to have a shot at explaining what that means in plain English?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductus_arteriosus
You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.It's actually the vagus nerve which travels down into the chest, carrying neurones that innervate the larynx, trachea and esophagus via the RLN.
It's actually the vagus nerve which travels down into the chest; the RLN branches off it at the level of the aorta. But yes, the neurones of the RLN pass down via the vagus and then up via the RLN.Exactly - why doesn't it branch off much higher up? I'm sure another way could have been found of closing the ductus arteriosus.
Exactly - why doesn't it branch off much higher up? I'm sure another way could have been found of closing the ductus arteriosus.
Steve,Possibly - so why would an intelligent designer do it that way? It leaves the problem for advocates of intelligent design exactly where it was.
I may be speculating too much, but if you check out the embryological development of the respiratory system, notice that the first thing you see happening is the outgrowth of two lung buds. The trachea appears to grow from the broncheal tree upwards. It is entirely innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, thus the final result will be that the nerve begins at the bottom of the trachea. That at least would explain why the trachea is not innervated from the top downwards.
Possibly - so why would an intelligent designer do it that way? It leaves the problem for advocates of intelligent design exactly where it was.Why wouldn't he do it that way? It works, so what is the problem?
Why wouldn't he do it that way? It works, so what is the problem?The problem is that the detour into the chest and back again exposes it to greater risk of injury than would be the case if it followed a direct route. This is not theoretical: serious chest trauma can and does cause loss of speech.
The problem is that the detour into the chest and back again exposes it to greater risk of injury than would be the case if it followed a direct route. This is not theoretical: serious chest trauma can and does cause loss of speech.That's not a design fault, though.
That's not a design fault, though.
The ductus arteriosus (DA) is the artery that shunts blood from the pulmonary artery to the aorta enabling blood to bypass the lungs in the fetus. One of my college *lecturers, a guy called Barry Jacobs, made reference to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) when describing how at birth, the DA closes so that blood can pass through the lungs. I think he said that tension from the left RLN, which passes underneath the DA before ascending to the larynx, aids the process of closing the DA. But the only literature I could find which supports this, I found while discussing this on the BBC R&E forum:
"Role of the vagus nerve and its recurrent laryngeal branch in the development of the human ductus arteriosus."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aja.1001670304
This paper suggests that the supporting effect of the RLN beneath the sixth aortic arch during development, reducess the elastin content of the DA's smooth muscle wall. This means that it is less likely to remain patent after birth, when it closes in response to increased levels of chemicals in the circulation.
I think Barry said that the RLN exerts some kind of tension force on the DA at birth. But he may have misconstrued that with the above effect on it during development.
* I studied cardiology as part of a degree in Osteopathy, which I am not currently practicing.
Of course it's a bloody design fault, if you assume design!Quote from: meThe problem is that the detour into the chest and back again exposes it to greater risk of injury than would be the case if it followed a direct route. This is not theoretical: serious chest trauma can and does cause loss of speech.That's not a design fault, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductus_arteriosusAnybody can Google it and post the Wikipedia link. I was trying to find out if Spud understood any of what he wrote.
Why wouldn't he do it that way? It works, so what is the problem?The hallmark of good design is simplicity. Get the job done with the least complicated machinery possible. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an example of unnecessary complexity. That suggests that mammals were not designed, or if they were, they were designed by somebody who was rubbish at it.
The hallmark of good design is simplicity. Get the job done with the least complicated machinery possible. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an example of unnecessary complexity. That suggests that mammals were not designed, or if they were, they were designed by somebody who was rubbish at it.It doesn't suggest it.wasn't designed, because I.could also say that about my mobile phone which is too heavy to.keep in my pocket for long. My phone was designed to use for more than just talking so it had to be too big to be effective as a true mobile, which would ideally be small enough to carry everywhere.
It doesn't suggest it.wasn't designed, because I.could also say that about my mobile phone which is too heavy to.keep in my pocket for long. My phone was designed to use for more than just talking so it had to be too big to be effective as a true mobile, which would ideally be small enough to carry everywhere.
You could say the RLN was designed badly- or more accurately that a trade-off was made between using neurons that are as short as possible, and keeping the original fish-like template, if you believe fish were the ancestors of mammals.
For me though, since the evidence seems to disprove the latter I prefer to believe that mammals arose by a different mechanism. Yes it's a faith position, but Hebrews 11 verse 2 or 3 confirms that that's the position of Christians.
The bible verse agrees with the evidence, Gordon. I've yet to see any science that proves evolution.
For me though, since the evidence seems to disprove the latter I prefer to believe that mammals arose by a different mechanism. Yes it's a faith position, but Hebrews 11 verse 2 or 3 confirms that that's the position of Christians.
It doesn't suggest it.wasn't designed, because I.could also say that about my mobile phone which is too heavy to.keep in my pocket for long. My phone was designed to use for more than just talking so it had to be too big to be effective as a true mobile, which would ideally be small enough to carry everywhere.
You could say the RLN was designed badly- or more accurately that a trade-off was made between using neurons that are as short as possible, and keeping the original fish-like template, if you believe fish were the ancestors of mammals.
Jeremy,
Sorry for the delay, I'm working on it. The larynx and trachea have different embryological origins., but the same nerve supply (the vagus). The larynx forms from the 4th and 6th pharyngeal arches, but the trachea begins as an outgrowth from the gut tube. From what I can make out, the nerve to the muscles of the larynx would be forming or in place before the trachea has finished elongating. So because the trachea is supplied by the same nerve, the nerve also has to elongate when it already is connected to the larynx, so that it can supply the full length of the trachea. That's my latest thought but I may be wrong.
So not only are you claiming this designer is an idiot, but that the engineer who designed the manufacturing process was a complete spanner too.Well, maybe not a spanner, since the existing route works fine.
If the larynx was innervated from higher up using a separate branch of the vagus, you wouldn't benefit from having changes in your voice should you develop an upper aortic aneurism or a tumour of the apex of the lung, which may otherwise not be diagnosed.How would your voice changing be a benefit if you have an aortic aneurism or a tumour?
If someone develops poor posture in the neck and shouldersMore bad design.
Maybe cough, difficulty swallowing or changes in the voice could be clinical signs of poor posture, signalling that action is necessary.What sort of action? Don't forget that for most of human history, we lacked the tools and knowledge to do anything about the diseases that afflicted us. You tend to know about it for some time before your appendix explodes, but until recently that was just early warning of your impending doom.
Spud, familiarise yourself with all the things that can go wrong during childbirth. Then come back and talk to use about intelligent design by a merciful god.
How would your voice changing be a benefit if you have an aortic aneurism or a tumour?It can aid diagnosis.
Aren't these things also evidence that, if there was a designer, he/she/it was very bad at it?I guess that's for the individual to decide.
More bad design.Poor neck and shoulder posture can be rectified. My strategy is to remove the headrest from my driving seat. Then I try to lean my head back onto the top of the seat (while stationary of course). If I can't do this I know my neck is restricted, so I practice doing it and after a while the mobility comes back and I can do it comfortably. It does relieve neck pain quite effectively (for me anyway). I do get some funny looks though.
What sort of action?The above is the most effective way I've personally found to deal with chronic muscle shortening in the front of the neck. It's not rocket science.
Don't forget that for most of human history, we lacked the tools and knowledge to do anything about the diseases that afflicted us.The Egyptians were pretty good engineers - they probably knew about posture.
You tend to know about it for some time before your appendix explodes, but until recently that was just early warning of your impending doom.Hold that thought.
It can aid diagnosis.What good is that if you lack the knowledge and tools to fix the problem as humans did for most of their history.
I guess that's for the individual to decide.Why don't you have the balls to confront the obvious problems with your world view?
Poor neck and shoulder posture can be rectified.Yes but, the fact that they can happen at all would be evidence of bad design if we were designed.
The Egyptians were pretty good engineers - they probably knew about posture.Hold that thought.You cherry pick one issue with the human body and one ancient civilisation and claim that makes everything OK. If you were an ancient Egyptian with appendicitis, you were guaranteed a painful death. This is not evidence of good design.
I have heard that Owl but not known anyone in my lifetime who believes it & going back in time, my maternal gran and aunt who were both obstetricians + plus m.i.l., district (now community) midwife, did not believe in it; old Queen Vic (who had plenty of experience!) championed women having pain relief for childbirth & was effective! Not everyonetook all the early Bible stuff literally.
In my lifetime and for many years before women were given pain relief of various types. We know some people had a very hard time for many reasons (I do & feel if that had been my experience I would not have done it again), and even if it's easy and natural, it's still an effort, but the idea of women 'deserving' painful childbirth is positively archaic! Plus you are forgetting women who go through pregnancy and give birth quite easily and there are many of those.
You cite Christian doctrine, I've no idea what other faiths say on this subject but what about them? They were surely in the same boat.
Childbirth is a great leveller. Nature is nature when it comes to childbirth, some easy and some not, same with animals.
Btw the Adam and Eve legend does not say "Apple", it says, "Fruit", and Eve was deceived by the arch manipulator! Adam just gave in, in my opinion he was far weaker. He just gave in, "OK then". Weak man. However, only a story to illustrate fall of man, many similar stories in other traditions.
What good is that if you lack the knowledge and tools to fix the problem as humans did for most of their history.
Why don't you have the balls to confront the obvious problems with your world view?
If we were designed, tumours and aortic aneurisms are evidence of bad design.
Yes but, the fact that they can happen at all would be evidence of bad design if we were designed.
You cherry pick one issue with the human body and one ancient civilisation and claim that makes everything OK. If you were an ancient Egyptian with appendicitis, you were guaranteed a painful death. This is not evidence of good design.
If there is a god, he is probably up there looking at your posts and cursing the fact that he failed to design anti bullshit measures into the human brain.
Nobody has yet proved that the tortuous route taken by the recurrent nerve is necessary. That doesn't mean they won't, at some stage. You only have to glance at it to see that the larynx's nerve supply is nice and neat, coming from above and below - the afferent nerves to the cough reflex supplied by the shorter, superior laryngeal nerve. Jerry Bergman writes that the structures below the larynx which are innervated by the RLN, may need to receive nerve impulses slightly before the larynx does, in order to prepare them for laryngeal activity. So I would guess he is thinking of the trachealis muscle which alters the diameter of the trachea. As well as phonation, think of the cough and the swallow. You need to narrow the trachea before opening the glottis when expelling that drop of ice cream that went down the wrong way, in order to increase the speed of the airflow. Both these functions (narrowing the trachea and opening the glottis) are controlled via the RLN. You also need to relax the trachealis when swallowing a massive lump of food so that the food can squeeze past the trachea. If that isn't enough to hint at a need for a precise design, well...
You need to narrow the trachea before opening the glottis when expelling that drop of ice cream that went down the wrong way,Ask yourself why it is even possible for ice cream to go down the wrong way.
Ask yourself why it is even possible for ice cream to go down the wrong way.
The arrangement at the confluence of the oesophagus and the trachea is a design disaster. Who would deliberately design the throat such that it makes it easy to choke on a piece of food or suffocate after swallowing your own tongue.
Thanks for another example of appalling design by your god.
Ask yourself why it is even possible for ice cream to go down the wrong way.Because people damage their throat - smoking, drinking, shouting etc. Actually, the design itself is totally cool.
Because people damage their throat - smoking, drinking, shouting etc. Actually, the design itself is totally cool.No it's not cool. No serious designer would arrange the pipes so that people could accidentally block their own windpipe just by swallowing food wrong.
Because people damage their throat - smoking, drinking, shouting etc. Actually, the design itself is totally cool.
What is cool about it?
No it's not cool. No serious designer would arrange the pipes so that people could accidentally block their own windpipe just by swallowing food wrong.
In this world machines eventually fail, even if they are designed perfectly. They can also be broken if not used correctly. The swallowing reflex is perfect, but at some point it won't work due to wear and tear or misuse.
You have a cough reflex for occasions when food does accidentally go down the wrong way. If you want to know how these reflexes are cool, you need to read up on them. If you're still not satisfied, explain why. If you're talking about disease processes that cause an otherwise perfect mechanism not to work, that is surely not the same issue?
Don't forget we have an inbuilt mechanism for replacing our old bodies: having kids. If that fails, at least we have the GOSPELS to show us how to get a new body!!
And lo, they got back on topic....
In this world machines eventually fail, even if they are designed perfectly. They can also be broken if not used correctly. The swallowing reflex is perfect, but at some point it won't work due to wear and tear or misuse.You are utterly missing the point.
You have a cough reflex for occasions when food does accidentally go down the wrong way. If you want to know how these reflexes are cool, you need to read up on them. If you're still not satisfied, explain why. If you're talking about disease processes that cause an otherwise perfect mechanism not to work, that is surely not the same issue?
Don't forget we have an inbuilt mechanism for replacing our old bodies: having kids.And if you choke to death before reaching puberty?
If that fails, at least we have the GOSPELS to show us how to get a new body!!
You are utterly missing the point.
The cough reflex is a bodge job to paper over another bodge job. When humans design machines, they keep the source of fuel and the source of oxygen separate. The cough reflex solves a problem that wouldn't exist if the human throat had been designed properly.
And if you choke to death before reaching puberty?
There gospels are made up stories.
This statistic shows that the design works safely.Tell that to my brother whose friend aged six put a rubber ball in his mouth and choked to death on it. Tell that to my brother's other friend who saw the whole thing.
Moreover, the lungs and airways are constantly producing mucus which is shunted up towards the entrance to the airway. This brings with it any inhaled particles and keeps the airways clean. It also humidifies the air. Once it reaches the throat it has to go somewhere. Should we spit every 30 seconds, or could that mucus be swallowed and recycled?You could have a one way valve from the trachea to the oesophagus to deal with that.
Tell that to my brother whose friend aged six put a rubber ball in his mouth and choked to death on it. Tell that to my brother's other friend who saw the whole thing.A baby has to learn how to swallow solid food; it takes years of constant supervision to make sure it gets the right kind and amount of food, and to keep unsuitable objects out of reach. You could equally blame the throat's design if a baby choked on a piece of food that wasn't cut up. It's down to adults to keep children safe. Sorry to hear about your brother's friend.
You could have a one way valve from the trachea to the oesophagus to deal with that.
A baby has to learn how to swallow solid food; it takes years of constant supervision to make sure it gets the right kind and amount of food, and to keep unsuitable objects out of reach. You could equally blame the throat's design if a baby choked on a piece of food that wasn't cut up. It's down to adults to keep children safe. Sorry to hear about your brother's friend.
The valve idea would not allow coughing or sneezing or any increase in air pressure in the airways.
You could equally blame the throat's design if a baby choked on a piece of food that wasn't cut up.Yes I could. In fact, I will
The valve idea would not allow coughing or sneezing or any increase in air pressure in the airways.Well, first of all, the wind pipe would not be sealed except for the valve. There would still be an air intake. Also, the valve opens from the windpipe to the oesophagus and would thus act as a safety valve in cases of over pressure. See. I’m a better designer than your god.
Yes I could. In fact, I willEr, I'm sure most parents would be happy to cut food up for their kids...
Well, first of all, the wind pipe would not be sealed except for the valve. There would still be an air intake. Also, the valve opens from the windpipe to the oesophagus and would thus act as a safety valve in cases of over pressure. See. I’m a better designer than your god.But if you had separate tubes for eating and breathing, you'd have to have two separate tongues and faces, since these are necessary for communication as well as nutrition. I suppose we could communicate by text messaging though,?