Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on April 13, 2021, 08:17:59 PM
-
I thought I'd post this up for interest in response to LR a year ago on the subject of eyewitness reliability.
So called eyewitnesses who were probably dead when the gospels were concocted. ::) Eyewitness testimonies are often way off the mark, especially when relating the less than credible events attributed to the long dead, Jesus.
A shooting in Sweden in 2013 was filmed on two mobile phones and the footage compared with eyewitness testimony:
The analysis showed clear differences between the witness testimonies and the film. Elements associated with perceived threat, for example, the assailant’s armament and movement direction and number of shots fired, were remembered fairly accurately. However, most witnesses poorly recollected when, that is, after which shot, the assailant fell to the ground. Moreover, memory of the actual order of events was altered and important aspects omitted that were crucial from a legal point of view.
https://tinyurl.com/2pexdy7c
Elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately, and importantly, were enough to confirm that the policeman had killed the perpetrator in self defence:
All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”.
However, only 1 out of 13 eyewitnesses reported, correctly according to the film, that the perpetrator was already on the ground when the policeman fired the final shot. The others reported the final shot being fired before he fell.
This seems to have potentially led to claims that he shot him more times than was necessary and therefore illegally. But the overall picture is of the perpetrator trying his best to attack the officer, who fired in self defense.
So applying this to the gospels, perhaps the details that involved a high level of stress for the witnesses were recalled more accurately. I'm assuming that the authors had access to eyewitnesses. The calming of the storm, the conversation at the last supper, when the disciples became distressed, and the conversation between Jesus and Thomas after the resurrection,
You could also relate this study to how perhaps one gospel would record accurately a particular detail crucial to understanding the progression of events, such as the timing of the last supper or the resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, whereas the others might be vague or focus on Galilean appearances.
-
Don't be so silly, Spud.
It has long been known that eye-witness accounts can be unreliable, as is the case in the Swedish incident you note. Now, if you want to compare that incident with the claims in the NT then you'll need to produce some equivalent testimony: so, from the 1st century CE, you'll need the mobile phone footage and the details of the witnesses, so that they can be interrogated and their recollections compared with the footage - and I suspect that might be problematic.
Alternatively, you could avoid making specious comparisons.
-
As an exercise in straw clutching that is quite impressive.
-
I thought I'd post this up for interest in response to LR a year ago on the subject of eyewitness reliability.
A shooting in Sweden in 2013 was filmed on two mobile phones and the footage compared with eyewitness testimony:
The analysis showed clear differences between the witness testimonies and the film. Elements associated with perceived threat, for example, the assailant’s armament and movement direction and number of shots fired, were remembered fairly accurately. However, most witnesses poorly recollected when, that is, after which shot, the assailant fell to the ground. Moreover, memory of the actual order of events was altered and important aspects omitted that were crucial from a legal point of view.
https://tinyurl.com/2pexdy7c
Elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately, and importantly, were enough to confirm that the policeman had killed the perpetrator in self defence:
All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”.
However, only 1 out of 13 eyewitnesses reported, correctly according to the film, that the perpetrator was already on the ground when the policeman fired the final shot. The others reported the final shot being fired before he fell.
This seems to have potentially led to claims that he shot him more times than was necessary and therefore illegally. But the overall picture is of the perpetrator trying his best to attack the officer, who fired in self defense.
So applying this to the gospels, perhaps the details that involved a high level of stress for the witnesses were recalled more accurately. I'm assuming that the authors had access to eyewitnesses. The calming of the storm, the conversation at the last supper, when the disciples became distressed, and the conversation between Jesus and Thomas after the resurrection,
You could also relate this study to how perhaps one gospel would record accurately a particular detail crucial to understanding the progression of events, such as the timing of the last supper or the resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, whereas the others might be vague or focus on Galilean appearances.
You really aren't helping yourself Spud.
Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.
So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.
Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.
So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.
-
You really aren't helping yourself Spud.
Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.
So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.
Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.
So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.
The one highlighted word says it all!
Owlswing
)O(
-
You really aren't helping yourself Spud.
Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.
Impressive forensic conclusion on the reliability of eye witness evidence.
-
You really aren't helping yourself Spud.
Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.
So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.
Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.
So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.
I doubt if you apply the same standard to other historical documents.
-
It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.
1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.
and
2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.
-
Don't be so silly, Spud.
It has long been known that eye-witness accounts can be unreliable
Can be or are?
-
It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.
1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.
and
2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.
Where aspects of the provenance of any document/source is uncertain then it comes with risks: where the authors of a document might potentially be biased it comes with risks, and especially so where the documents contains fantastic claims: where is a gap between the alleged events and the earliest recording of said events then there are the risks of introduced mistakes, exaggerations and lies/propaganda.
I'd say these risks apply to any and all documents/sources.
-
It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.
1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.
and
2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.
No-one is ignoring the documents.
However in a historical context (rather than a theological one) you need to look at the credibility and reliability of the claims, just as you do with any other historical document and claim. And the problem with the gospel claims (even if we ignore their inherent implausibility of some of the claims) is that they seriously fail the standard historical tests for reliability for the following reasons.
1. They are neither contemporaneous nor written geographically close the the purported events.
2. The versions we have have been through multiple iterations and there is a strong evidence of changes to the documents over time.
3. They are written by partial authors
4. There is no independent corroborative evidence (either written or archeological) to verify the claims. The best being archeological but also backed up by contemporary written evidence from 'the other side'.
5. There is no evidence that they are intended as articles of factual evidence rather than articles of faith.
There are, of course, plenty of other historical claims that have similarly weak evidence and they are also considered in the same vein. However there is a major difference - so the evidence that Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings by an arrow in the eye is very weak. However the evidence that he died at the Battle of Hastings is much stronger and how he died is historically irrelevant (albeit a nice story). With the gospels there are people who claim the details to be absolutely true (despite no credible evidence) and also construct a whole belief system around that claim - and one that impacts on those who don't hold that belief.
If there were a group of true believers in the Harold-eye-arrow claim that also demanded that no-one should be allowed to engage in archery then I might be more exercised about the veracity of the claim. But as it is whether or not Harold died by an arrow in the eye is completely irrelevant to my life. So despite the fact that the evidence for this claim is weak it doesn't greatly bother me, beyond being clear that the evidence is weak.
-
Impressive forensic conclusion on the reliability of eye witness evidence.
Impressive diversionary tactic Vlad.
Sure I wrote the conclusion in the rather colloquial 'Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.' However that is irrelevant - I could just as easily said that 'Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still very poor.' or other such terminology.
The conclusion of the study is that in a 'field' experiment (rather than a contrived lab study) the eye witnesses varied one to another in their recollection of the event despite being formally interviewed about it just days afterwards.
-
Vlad,
I doubt if you apply the same standard to other historical documents.
Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?
-
Vlad,
Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?
Indeed - classic double standards. Why does Vlad accept the claims of christianity in the absence of evidence while rejecting the claims of other religion similarly based on a paucity of evidence.
We actually have a term for stories and claims arising from early cultures, particularly involving a supernatural element to the claim. We call them myths.
-
Vlad,
Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?
Muhammed and other religious founders were the only ones to see the angel who dictated the scripture to them, whereas Christ was written about by multiple independent sources.
Myths develop over centuries. Christianity was established within decades after the events it describes. Eg the authors were familiar with the geography, plant life, people known from archaeology, etc in Palestine, so must have lived soon after the time of events.
-
The conclusion of the study is that in a 'field' experiment (rather than a contrived lab study) the eye witnesses varied one to another in their recollection of the event despite being formally interviewed about it just days afterwards.
But it also brings out the fact that the witnesses got the crucial details correct.
-
Spud,
But it also brings out the fact that the witnesses got the crucial details correct.
How do you know that?
-
Spud,
How do you know that?
It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.
In the Results it says,
All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."
These details give a clear picture of what happened, despite other details not being recalled accurately.
What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".
-
Spud,
It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.
In the Results it says,
All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."
What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".
Ah, I thought you meant the "witnesses" to the alleged resurrection. Other have explained to you already why your thesis is mistaken, but in any case if someone genuinely thought that, say, the woman on stage had been sawn in two and reconnected their accounts would have "got the details correct" too, but only insofar as they thought them to be correct.
-
Spud,
Ah, I thought you meant the "witnesses" to the alleged resurrection. Other have explained to you already why your thesis is mistaken, but in any case if someone genuinely thought that, say, the woman on stage had been sawn in two and reconnected their accounts would have "got the details correct" too, but only insofar as they thought them to be correct.
Others have pointed out the three days v longer time span difference, yes. I think these witnesses would remember the key fear-associated details they described, for longer than three days, and I'd suggest the recollection of a knife being brandished would stick in the memory for quite some time.
It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggest that key elements would be remembered correctly.
The sawn in two analogy doesn't work because the lady was conscious throughout, so the observer knows it is an optical illusion.
-
pud,
Others have pointed out the three days v longer time span difference, yes. I think these witnesses would remember the key details associated with fear which were described for longer than three days, and I'd suggest the recollection of a knife being brandished would stick in the memory for quite some time.
It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggests that key elements would be remembered correctly.
The sawn in two analogy doesn't work because the lady was conscious throughout, so the observer knows it is an optical illusion.
You’re not getting it. The “conscious throughout” point is irrelevant: the problem is not that the conjuring trick is the same as the “resurrection” in all its particulars, but rather that it too would be an event (being sawn in two and surviving) that would be impossible according to all known understanding of how the world works. The point here is that “Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again” and “a woman was sawn in two, then reconnected” are both narratives. They’re descriptions of what people thought had happened so that – even if there was some way to verify that the witnesses actually said what was ascribed to them later on – what they said was only the story that made most sense to them at the time.
Whether either story mapped to what actually happened though is a different matter entirely.
-
It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggest that key elements would be remembered correctly.
You're still missing it, Spud.
You have no way to check, unlike with your Swedish example, that what was 'remembered' in the NT claims is factually correct given the risks of human artifice. You are clinging to the idea that aspects that are related to feelings of 'fear' or 'threat' tend to be better remembered but you have no way to check, unlike with the Swedish incident, whether the people involved with the NT claims actually felt fearful or threatened: after all, you can't even exclude the possibility that what found its way into the NT involves errors or lies.
-
It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.
In the Results it says,
All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."
These details give a clear picture of what happened, despite other details not being recalled accurately.
What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".
But you are missing the point that they were formally interviewed about their recollection. So they will have been carefully and formally asked about the various aspects of their recollection. And these are first hand witnesses.
How on earth is that equivalent to the claimed witnesses in the gospels. Who interviewed them? When were they interviewed? How was their recollection recorded? The answer is that we have no idea and at best we have people who may have seen something (and we've seen from the study that their immediate recollection can be faulty) who may have told someone else, who themselves told someone else etc etc - who eventually wrote this multiple generation story down.
So if you apply the gospel approach to the Sweden incident, you'd have 13 people not formally interviewed whose recollections were immediately faulty and will, likely get more faulty over time. Those 13 people give an account to someone else at some point in the future, who tells someone else etc etc. Rather than getting the core details (e.g. single man with knife) correct - through time you get someone claiming there was a gun-man, another that there were several attackers with knives, another that the police attacked an innocent unarmed man etc etc.
Eye witness testimony, even when recounted straight away, is notoriously faulty. When viewed from years or decades later having been through multiple generations of here-say any confidence in the veracity of the remembers and transmitted story to the original becomes vanishingly small.
-
Hi Gordon,
You're still missing it, Spud.
You have no way to check, unlike with your Swedish example, that what was 'remembered' in the NT claims is factually correct given the risks of human artifice. You are clinging to the idea that aspects that are related to feelings of 'fear' or 'threat' tend to be better remembered but you have no way to check, unlike with the Swedish incident, whether the people involved with the NT claims actually felt fearful or threatened: after all, you can't even exclude the possibility that what found its way into the NT involves errors or lies.
There’s a potentially bigger problem here too. Even allowing for the huge uncertainties about the accuracy of accounts written down long after the statements were made, let’s say that a witness actually saw a man with a knife running toward a policeman and that the policeman saw him coming and shot him. That’s a factual description. Now let’s try an eye-witness account of it – when asked, he might for example have said, “I saw an assailant attacking a policeman with a knife, and in self-defence the policeman was forced to kill him.”
Various parts of this version though (“assailant”, “attacking”, “self-defence”) are interpretations; elements layered on by the witness. They amplify and justify the story, but they’re not descriptions of the facts.
Now let’s re-run the events, but from a different perspective. Let’s say that the “assailant” was a butcher working in his shop cutting meat with a cleaver when he happened to look out of the window and saw a bus careering down the hill toward a policeman. Panicked, the butcher ran out of his shop (still carrying the knife) with the intention of pushing the policeman out of harm’s way. The policemen though mistook his intent and so shot him.
This phenomenon seems to me to be a major problem for those who would claim the resurrection story to be true. Even if they could navigate the minefield of translation, repetition etc potential for mistakes in the extant version, still they’d have no way to know that the narrative the witnesses layered on (“Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again”) wasn’t just like the narrative layered on in the knifeman story. What if a bigger picture was available that the witnesses didn’t see (say, the body being switched behind the scenes) akin to the bigger picture of the oncoming bus? The resurrection narrative would still make sense to the witness, but it would tell you nothing about the reality.
-
Hi Gordon,
There’s a potentially bigger problem here too. Even allowing for the huge uncertainties about the accuracy of accounts written down long after the statements were made, let’s say that a witness actually saw a man with a knife running toward a policeman and that the policeman saw him coming and shot him. That’s a factual description. Now let’s try an eye-witness account of it – when asked, he might for example have said, “I saw an assailant attacking a policeman with a knife, and in self-defence the policeman was forced to kill him.”
Various parts of this version though (“assailant”, “attacking”, “self-defence”) are interpretations; elements layered on by the witness. They amplify and justify the story, but they’re not descriptions of the facts.
Now let’s re-run the events, but from a different perspective. Let’s say that the “assailant” was a butcher working in his shop cutting meat with a cleaver when he happened to look out of the window and saw a bus careering down the hill toward a policeman. Panicked, the butcher ran out of his shop (still carrying the knife) with the intention of pushing the policeman out of harm’s way. The policemen though mistook his intent and so shot him.
This phenomenon seems to me to be a major problem for those who would claim the resurrection story to be true. Even if they could navigate the minefield of translation, repetition etc potential for mistakes in the extant version, still they’d have no way to know that the narrative the witnesses layered on (“Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again”) wasn’t just like the narrative layered on in the knifeman story. What if a bigger picture was available that the witnesses didn’t see (say, the body being switched behind the scenes) akin to the bigger picture of the oncoming bus? The resurrection narrative would still make sense to the witness, but it would tell you nothing about the reality.
Or that the whole story is no more that fictitious propaganda for Jesus that was contrived by his credulous fans living in credulous times: something that the Spuds of this world seem congenitally unable to even countenance.
-
Gordon,
Or that the whole story is no more that fictitious propaganda for Jesus that was contrived by his credulous fans living in credulous times: something that the Spuds of this world seem congenitally unable to even countenance.
Yep, there are various possible explanations that have no supernatural content at all. Something that always strikes me too is how precisely aligned the story is to a conjuring trick. A standard trope of stage magic is that the event is briefly hidden – the curtain on a hoop is briefly pulled up around the performer, then dropped again for the “miracle” to be revealed. Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!
Why though? Why not for example have Jesus crucified and left there (with all the evident signs of death) and then (say) three days later, suddenly have him perk up, the nails fly out and yer man/god leap down as fresh as a daisy? Seems to me that if I was “god” and I wanted to persuade people that there had been a real resurrection I’d have taken care not to incorporate a basic trope of stage magic in the middle of the event. Oh well.
-
Vlad,
Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?
No that is the point you want. I have never held the position you are applying to here.
With most miracles you can have use the comment ''so what'', even if they happened. In my opinion more so in other faith traditions. It is the theology and one's own experience which I think is crucial. In other words you misrepresent me.
Your objections can be summarised as the exercise of philosophical naturalism overlaid by some hurt inflicted in a religious setting and/or some the taking out of some hangup one has on other people.
I would also like to disagree that History is a subset of science. That is a positive assertion which nobody has apparently justified.
-
Gordon,
Yep, there are various possible explanations that have no supernatural content at all. Something that always strikes me too is how precisely aligned the story is to a conjuring trick. A standard trope of stage magic is that the event is briefly hidden – the curtain on a hoop is briefly pulled up around the performer, then dropped again for the “miracle” to be revealed. Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!
Why though? Why not for example have Jesus crucified and left there (with all the evident signs of death) and then (say) three days later, suddenly have him perk up, the nails fly out and yer man/god leap down as fresh as a daisy? Seems to me that if I was “god” and I wanted to persuade people that there had been a real resurrection I’d have taken care not to incorporate a basic trope of stage magic in the middle of the event. Oh well.
A one part of the Lewis trilemma. Jesus was BAD.
Magic does seek to reconstruct the supernatural. It is a good job Pontius Pilate, The Jewish authorities The sundry centurions, A huge flash mob crowd available to call for his execution were in on the act and a false stomach made of suet filled with fig juice were available and fitted to Jesus in the middle of a group execution.......
-
Vlad,
No that is the point you want. I have never held the position you are applying to here.
Yes it is the point. You think a resurrection actually happened as described, and you do so on the basis of an evidential bar you don’t accept when set just as low by other faith traditions.
QED
With most miracles you can have use the comment ''so what'', even if they happened. In my opinion more so in other faith traditions. It is the theology and one's own experience which I think is crucial. In other words you misrepresent me.
In other words, you just tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (again). The “theology and one’s own experience” adds nothing to the credibility or otherwise of the story. Either it happened or it didn’t – how you’d feel about it if it did tells you nothing at all about that.
Your objections can be summarised as the exercise of philosophical naturalism overlaid by some hurt inflicted in a religious setting and/or some the taking out of some hangup one has on other people.
No, they can be characterised as having a better grasp of argument than you do. By all means try again though with some reasoning of your own that isn’t hopeless if you have any.
I would also like to disagree that History is a subset of science. That is a positive assertion which nobody has apparently justified.
Or said. What has been said though is that the tests of historicity rely on various principles and rules. They have to if any or every document or claim isn’t to be accepted as historically accurate just at face value.
-
Vlad,
Magic does seek to reconstruct the supernatural. It is a good job Pontius Pilate, The Jewish authorities The sundry centurions, A huge flash mob crowd available to call for his execution were in on the act and a false stomach made of suet filled with fig juice were available and fitted to Jesus in the middle of a group execution.......
It’s a good job there was a box, a saw, a comely young woman prepared to be sawn in two for a bit, stage lighting etc for the magician to do his thing too then right?
You can have all the elements of the resurrection story you like and still have pulled (say) a body switcheroo – indeed those elements add to it, just as the whole audience seeing the girl sawn in two would add to that story.
Big fail old son.
-
Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!
Except that the claims of witnesses to the purported resurrected Jesus seem be be late additions to the whole story. Don't forget that the gospel considered to have been written first (Mark), in its original ending had no resurrection appearances whatsoever. Merely an empty tomb.
Now of all the explanations (and there are many) for finding a previously filled grave suddenly empty, resurrection is just about the least plausible.
So going back to the shooting analogy. It would be the equivalent of the earliest witness testimonies perhaps confirming that there was a man with a knife, but later testimony adds some additional 'colour' for effect - for example that he was juggling with three knives before throwing each one, inch perfectly to down three policemen. The earliest claims from the gospel are deeply unimpressive as evidence for a resurrection, hence the likely need to 'sex them up' a tad.
-
Vlad,
Yes it is the point. You think a resurrection actually happened as described, and you do so on the basis of an evidential bar you don’t accept when set just as low by other faith traditions.
QED
In other words, you just tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (again). The “theology and one’s own experience” adds nothing to the credibility or otherwise of the story. Either it happened or it didn’t – how you’d feel about it if it did tells you nothing at all about that.
No, they can be characterised as having a better grasp of argument than you do. By all means try again though with some reasoning of your own that isn’t hopeless if you have any.
Or said. What has been said though is that the tests of historicity rely on various principles and rules. They have to if any or every document or claim isn’t to be accepted as historically accurate just at face value.
Waffle.
-
Vlad,
It’s a good job there was a box, a saw, a comely young woman prepared to be sawn in two for a bit, stage lighting etc for the magician to do his thing too then right?
You can have all the elements of the resurrection story you like and still have pulled (say) a body switcheroo – indeed those elements add to it, just as the whole audience seeing the girl sawn in two would add to that story.
Big fail old son.
More Waffle.
-
Vlad,
Waffle.
Avoidance noted.
More Waffle.
Ditto.
Which parts of the perfectly clear and succinct arguments that undid you are you running away from especially here?
-
Vlad,
Avoidance noted.
Ditto.
Which parts of the perfectly clear and succinct arguments that undid you are you running away from especially here?
Bonus waffle.
-
Vlad,
Bonus waffle.
Still no argument of your own then. Probably just as well given the corner into which you've painted yourself again.
Oh well. If ever you do feel like at least trying a rebuttal though by all mean give it a try.
-
Except that the claims of witnesses to the purported resurrected Jesus seem be be late additions to the whole story. Don't forget that the gospel considered to have been written first (Mark), in its original ending had no resurrection appearances whatsoever. Merely an empty tomb.
Now of all the explanations (and there are many) for finding a previously filled grave suddenly empty, resurrection is just about the least plausible.
So going back to the shooting analogy. It would be the equivalent of the earliest witness testimonies perhaps confirming that there was a man with a knife, but later testimony adds some additional 'colour' for effect - for example that he was juggling with three knives before throwing each one, inch perfectly to down three policemen. The earliest claims from the gospel are deeply unimpressive as evidence for a resurrection, hence the likely need to 'sex them up' a tad.
The resurrection appearances in Matthew are interesting because the one to the women interrupts the flow of the narrative and is likely a later insertion (it has detail similar to John's account, viz the women held on to him). However the appearance in Galilee fulfills the prediction of Jesus at the last supper and of the angel at the tomb, so is likely part of the original narrative.
Matthew appears to have been edited in parts, with many additions, some of which are duplication of existing text that does not fit very well into its secondary context. Perhaps this leads to the idea that the unedited core of narrative is based on Mark, the shortest gospel.
We've discussed the subject of who copied who, but if we accept that Matthew wrote first we have an early resurrection appearance so the sexed up theory can be dismissed.
-
However the appearance in Galilee fulfills the prediction of Jesus at the last supper and of the angel at the tomb, so is likely part of the original narrative.
Which tells us nothing about whether this claim is based on an eye witness account, nor about the provenance or veracity of any potential eye witness account. Realistically all it tells us is that the narrative aligns with a theological imperative rather than that the narrative aligns with reality.
Matthew appears to have been edited in parts, with many additions, some of which are duplication of existing text that does not fit very well into its secondary context. Perhaps this leads to the idea that the unedited core of narrative is based on Mark, the shortest gospel.
We've discussed the subject of who copied who, but if we accept that Matthew wrote first we have an early resurrection appearance so the sexed up theory can be dismissed.
But we don't accept the notion that Matthew wrote first and nor do most credible historians who all think that Mark was first. But you've also inferred that the extant copies of Matthew we have, from perhaps 150-200 years after the purported events, contain evidence of alterations. That being the case how can we have any confidence that what we see in 150-250AD bears resemblance to what might have been originally written, perhaps in 90AD - let alone how that might relate to the testimony of any actual witnesses from decades earlier.
-
Which tells us nothing about whether this claim is based on an eye witness account, nor about the provenance or veracity of any potential eye witness account. Realistically all it tells us is that the narrative aligns with a theological imperative rather than that the narrative aligns with reality.
But we don't accept the notion that Matthew wrote first and nor do most credible historians who all think that Mark was first. But you've also inferred that the extant copies of Matthew we have, from perhaps 150-200 years after the purported events, contain evidence of alterations. That being the case how can we have any confidence that what we see in 150-250AD bears resemblance to what might have been originally written, perhaps in 90AD - let alone how that might relate to the testimony of any actual witnesses from decades earlier.
I'm sorry, I've made a mistake: in the book I'm reading it says that Mt 28:16-20 is likely also an editorial addition, as well as the guards' report. If the appearance to the women is too, that would mean that the original ending would have been, like in Mark, with the women at the tomb.
-
I'm sorry, I've made a mistake: in the book I'm reading it says that Mt 28:16-20 is likely also an editorial addition, as well as the guards' report. If the appearance to the women is too, that would mean that the original ending would have been, like in Mark, with the women at the tomb.
So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.
Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.
So not sure whether you followed this news story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm
But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.
-
So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.
Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.
So not sure whether you followed this news story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm
But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.
The trouble with this is this if it is being presented as conversion, christian conviction, repentance and faith then it is a bit thin and pale. The new testament goes on to speak of post resurrection encounters which you seem not to have factored in.
Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.
Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?
-
So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.
Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.
So not sure whether you followed this news story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm
But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.
It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen. I'd be a bit like the men on the road to Emmaus, not really believing it but wondering if I should given the reports of angels.
-
Vlad,
Just some more corrections for you that no doubt you'll hand wave away too.
The trouble with this is this if it is being presented as conversion, christian conviction, repentance and faith then it is a bit thin and pale.
These are all meanings that have been layered on to the basic story post facto. They tell you nothing about whether the story itself is true though.
The new testament goes on to speak of post resurrection encounters which you seem not to have factored in.
With a switched body in the trick "post resurrection encounters" would be essential. How else would you show that the supposed resurrection had happened?
Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.
Why does the location matter to the success or otherwise of the story?
Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?
And that's the survivorship bias fallacy to finish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). It's a basic failure in reasoning to assume that the idea that caught the wind must therefore have been more valid or more true than those that didn't. I've explained this bias to you several times before now so I don't know why you've just fallen into the same hole again.
-
Spud,
It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen. I'd be a bit like the men on the road to Emmaus, not really believing it but wondering if I should given the reports of angels.
That's a bit like saying that Harry Potter must have been able to fly on broomsticks because it was the wizard Dumbledore who said it was so. Adding an extra fantastical claim to a story ("angel") doesn't thereby validate the prior fantastical claim (a resurrection).
-
It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen.
Unevidenced assertion and doubling implausible as there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.
-
Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.
Why not?
But actually christianity never took off where the purported resurrection was claimed to have taken place, so the claims didn't impress the people in the place and at the time.
-
Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?
Because they were being promulgated at a time when people were culturally superstitious, believing in all sorts of supernatural claims that we understand now to be non-sense.
And also because it had some great salesmen, who having recognised that their message fell on deaf ears in Palestine took their snake oil stories further afield and hit lucky, particularly within the Roman empire, which was ripe for 'modernisation' and change. Had Constantine I not been persuaded to hook up with the biggest new thing in town, I suspect we'd not have heard much more about christianity after about 400AD. It would have withered on the vine like many other religious cults.
-
Vlad,
Just some more corrections for you that no doubt you'll hand wave away too.
These are all meanings that have been layered on to the basic story post facto. They tell you nothing about whether the story itself is true though.
With a switched body in the trick "post resurrection encounters" would be essential. How else would you show that the supposed resurrection had happened?
Why does the location matter to the success or otherwise of the story?
As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authoritiesAnd that's the survivorship bias fallacy to finish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). It's a basic failure in reasoning to assume that the idea that caught the wind must therefore have been more valid or more true than those that didn't. I've explained this bias to you several times before now so I don't know why you've just fallen into the same hole again.
Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.
Therefore the person in Staffordshire I would imagine has no particularly religious context. The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul. So the NT, in your scheme gives us three potential religions. So either Jesus won because ''He survived because he survived'' Or he had a religious context in which it all makes sense. Something which does not fit a niche in religion is hardly going to fit a niche in religious thinking.
There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........
-
The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul.
Not helping yourself - so you are implying that resurrections were ten a penny back in those days. And of course there are countless other claims of dead people coming back to life in antiquity.
So did resurrection suddenly go out of fashion or are we looking at the claims of superstitious societies that fill the gaps of their lack of knowledge with stuff which isn't true. Remember thunder is the gods fighting, earthquakes are the elephants on which the earth rests moving etc etc.
-
There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........
Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.
Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.
Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).
-
Vlad,
As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authorities
Just saying something doesn’t make it true though, especially when what you’re saying is also an argument from personal incredulity.
Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.
Therefore the person in Staffordshire I would imagine has no particularly religious context.
Oh dear. You’re lost in circular reasoning here: the resurrection story is used to justify claims of a supernatural god; now you’re arguing that the “context” of a supernatural god validates the resurrection story.
Can you see where you’ve gone wrong here?
The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul. So the NT, in your scheme gives us three potential religions. So either Jesus won because ''He survived because he survived'' Or he had a religious context in which it all makes sense.
Or the Jesus story “won” for reasons that could well have nothing to do with the resurrection story being true – like Christianity being selected by Constantine I as the approved religion for example. That’s the point.
Something which does not fit a niche in religion is hardly going to fit a niche in religious thinking.
See above re circular reasoning: the resurrection story justifies the religious thinking; the religious thinking justifies the resurrection story; the resurrection story justifies the….” etc, and round and round you go.
There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........
Your ignorance of survivorship bias is showing here. The bias (which is common by the way) comes from looking at the survivors and drawing your conclusions from only that group. Once famous case for example concerned WWII bombers that needed extra armour, so the boffins looked at the bullet holes in them and decided that that’s where the armour should go – mainly in the wings and fuselage. What they forgot though was the silent evidence of the ‘planes that never made it back – ie, the ones that had been shot down because the bullets hit the engines and the cockpits, which is where the armour should really go.
Short version: evolution concerns natural selection, not artificial selection.
Apart from all that though…
-
Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.
Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.
Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).
Not helping yourself - so you are implying that resurrections were ten a penny back in those days. And of course there are countless other claims of dead people coming back to life in antiquity.
So did resurrection suddenly go out of fashion or are we looking at the claims of superstitious societies that fill the gaps of their lack of knowledge with stuff which isn't true. Remember thunder is the gods fighting, earthquakes are the elephants on which the earth rests moving etc etc.
No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.
I don't have to help myself, it is you who has to square accepting documentation in one case 8 centuries after the event but rejecting out of hand documentation from 2 centuries.
Resurrection in two of the occasions is attributed to Jesus and the Holy spirit and Jesus was raised by God.
Secondly what has this got to do with Hillside's theory of survivor bias going on?
-
... unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........
Happens all the time - if by good luck you sit in one plane seat rather than another you may survive a plane crash while someone in a different seat dies. What exactly is the reason for one person living and the other dying, beyond the good fortune of randomly allocated choice of seat. Certainly there is no evidence that the person who survives is somehow 'fitter' than the person who dies.
-
Spud,
That's a bit like saying that Harry Potter must have been able to fly on broomsticks because it was the wizard Dumbledore who said it was so. Adding an extra fantastical claim to a story ("angel") doesn't thereby validate the prior fantastical claim (a resurrection).
In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.
-
No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.
Seems to be a pretty mainstream myth in ancient times and ancient mythology (and I include christianity in that category).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
Vlad - why is Jesus' resurrection so important but the resurrection of all these other gods etc not so? Or do you simply not believe in the resurrection myths of other religions and cultures but believe in the resurrection myth of Christianity despite there is no more evidence for the latter than the former.
-
Vlad,
No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.
Yes they were. The resurrection story alone features multiply in preceding traditions, and itself is likely to rooted in pagan beliefs about the turning of the seasons.
I don't have to help myself, it is you who has to square accepting documentation in one case 8 centuries after the event but rejecting out of hand documentation from 2 centuries.
Yes you do - you need to consider why some stories are accepted by (some) people and others aren't - specifically you need to explain why you're not applying bog standard survivorship bias to justify the acceptance of some stories but not of others.
Resurrection in two of the occasions is attributed to Jesus and the Holy spirit and Jesus was raised by God.
Fallacy of reification. You're arguing by assertion here.
Secondly what has this got to do with Hillside's theory of survivor bias going on?
Everything. See whether you can work out for yourself why.
-
Spud,
In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.
You're missing the point. You can't justify a claim by asserting that an "angel" witnessed it without first justifying the claim "angel".
-
Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.
I think we need to examine what you mean by survived in the context of religion and what it means to be lucky in the same context.
Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.
I'm minded of nuclear scientists working on a solution to the problem of conveying information of the dangers of nuclear radiation to not just future generations but future civilisations. They recognise that normal means of communication and transmission are not likely to work since the civilisation is likely to pass. However they acknowledge that religions can span civilisations.
This makes examples of survivor bias and stories of getting lucky seem rather paltry when making comparison with religion.Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).
Again you are putting things all down to luck and therefore can neither give or feel the necessity to find cause. Again how do you get lucky as a religion?
-
Spud,
You're missing the point. You can't justify a claim by asserting that an "angel" witnessed it without first justifying the claim "angel".
But if there had been prophecies spanning centuries that someone's granny would one day rise from the dead...
-
As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authorities Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.
Have you considered that the resurrection account could be wholly fictitious? No need for subterfuge or trickery, and a context for that could be the need for the local Jesus fan club to 'keep the dream alive' via a fantastical story that would appeal to the credulous and keep the show on the road - after all, the local culture was highly religious to the point of being a theocracy.
The claim is yours, as is the burden of proof, but you guys seem incapable of even considering the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies and, in my view, unless you can show a basis for disposing of these risks then the resurrection story isn't worth taking seriously as historical fact.
-
Vlad,
I think we need to examine what you mean by survived in the context of religion and what it means to be lucky in the same context.
Why? Both should be obvious I’d have thought.
I'm minded of nuclear scientists working on a solution to the problem of conveying information of the dangers of nuclear radiation to not just future generations but future civilisations. They recognise that normal means of communication and transmission are not likely to work since the civilisation is likely to pass. However they acknowledge that religions can span civilisations.
This makes examples of survivor bias and stories of getting lucky seem rather paltry when making comparison with religion.
No it doesn’t. Even if that story was true, it wouldn’t imply that the religious stories themselves were also true - just that the religions were a convenient vehicle for other, non-religious purposes. You know, the same rationale for Constantine I picking Christianity.
Short version: you’ve shot yourself in both feet here.
Again you are putting things all down to luck and therefore can neither give or feel the necessity to find cause. Again how do you get lucky as a religion?
Why not look at all those religions that have survived but whose stories you do not think to be true for your answer? If their content isn’t true, how come they did so well but for luck and happenstance?
-
Spud,
But if there had been prophecies spanning centuries that someone's granny would one day rise from the dead...
'
Those "prophecies" fail rational scrutiny.
-
Seems to be a pretty mainstream myth in ancient times and ancient mythology (and I include christianity in that category).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
Vlad - why is Jesus' resurrection so important but the resurrection of all these other gods etc not so? Or do you simply not believe in the resurrection myths of other religions and cultures but believe in the resurrection myth of Christianity despite there is no more evidence for the latter than the former.
Religious context old boy. The ''gods'' manifest to have fun, or show off, or have their wicked way. So really there is no cosmic significance to this at all. In other pantheons Gods manifest in many strange not quite human forms maintaining a kind of distance....and perhaps God's manifest and die because these Gods may not have escaped or be above a realm of death or domination by greater but natural forces.
Key to my religion though is my own experience of Revelations 3:20. Because of that the resurrection story is consistent and meaningful. I have yet to encounter other Gods and I can join with whoever said other religions just don't seem to move me and, I think you'll find they don't seem to move a lot on this forum even those who are atheist as much as christianity seems to.
-
Vlad,
Why? Both should be obvious I’d have thought.
No it doesn’t. Even if that story was true, it wouldn’t imply that the religious stories themselves were also true - just that the religions were a convenient vehicle for other, non-religious purposes. You know, the same rationale for Constantine I picking Christianity.
Short version: you’ve shot yourself in both feet here.
Why not look at all those religions that have survived but whose stories you do not think to be true for your answer? If their content isn’t true, how come they did so well but for luck and happenstance?
So would you say that secular humanism is on the increase because it got lucky.
In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.
-
Vlad,
Religious context old boy. The ''gods'' manifest to have fun, or show off, or have their wicked way. So really there is no cosmic significance to this at all. In other pantheons Gods manifest in many strange not quite human forms maintaining a kind of distance....and perhaps God's manifest and die because these Gods may not have escaped or be above a realm of death or domination by greater but natural forces.
So now you’re trying a mash up of circular reasoning and the argumentum ad consequentiam "Old Boy"; An omni-fallacy if you will.
Good luck trying to explain what any of this has to do with the whether the resurrection story is actually true though.
Key to my religion though is my own experience of Revelations 3:20. Because of that the resurrection story is consistent and meaningful. I have yet to encounter other Gods and I can join with whoever said other religions just don't seem to move me and, I think you'll find they don't seem to move a lot on this forum even those who are atheist as much as christianity seems to.
It’s pretty likely you’ve yet to encounter any gods, but in any case this still has sweet FA to say about whether the basic resurrection story is also true. You’re feelings about the story if it’s true are neither here nor there for this purpose.
-
Vlad,
So would you say that secular humanism is on the increase because it got lucky.
In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.[/quote]
Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason.
-
Vlad,
In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.
Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason.
Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.
-
Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.
Nope Vlad it is you that is in classic special pleading mode:
Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'
Everyone else - 'Why?'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - there's no more evidence for your resurrection than any of the others. Why is yours more important'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - why wont you engage with the point?'
Vlad - 'I'll squeem and squeeze until I'm sick. Yah boo - secular humanism, Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins'
:o
-
Vlad,
In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.
Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason.
Look, If you are saying survival is either a matter of luck and that the best can go to the wall in survival bias then it may not even matter that secular Human is underpinned by reason.....something i'm not persuaded of.
If something survives by being reasonable then the world would not be the place it is today.
At the moment secular humanism is doing well I would move because it fits the emotional mood that you can be good without this that and the other.
If something survives in religion then that it could be because it is fit in the context of religion. So Survival of the fittest trumps survival bias and sheer luck but is itself trumped because what you are putting down as the main influencers, civilisation and society collapse and yet the religion still stands.
-
Nope Vlad it is you that is in classic special pleading mode:
Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'
I think you mean ''Erection''.
-
Vlad,
Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.
I’ll add special pleading to the list of terms you attempt but don’t understand...
Look, If you are saying survival is either a matter of luck and that the best can go to the wall in survival bias then it may not even matter that secular Human is underpinned by reason.....something i'm not persuaded of.
…and now survivorship bias makes the list too.
If something survives by being reasonable then the world would not be the place it is today. At the moment secular humanism is doing well I would move because it fits the emotional mood that you can be good without this that and the other.
The “world is the place it is today” inasmuch as it has procedures and technologies that for many of us much better serve our needs than those that came before. That’s what happens when reason and evidence are applied in a purposive way.
If something survives in religion then that it could be because it is fit in the context of religion.
And now circular reasoning joins the list…
So Survival of the fittest…
Evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest” – that’s a common misnomer…
…trumps survival bias and sheer luck but is itself trumped because what you are putting down as the main influencers, civilisation and society collapse and yet the religion still stands.
No, religions (plural) survive – either you think they do so because they’re all correct or you must allow for other factors. Coincidentally there’s a piece in today’s Indie that tells you why Christianity is one of them – basically better PR and a more successful army. Nothing to do with it’s various myths and shibboleths being true though:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/christianity-news-propaganda-archaeology-b1832070.html
(For anyone interested when you click the link it asks you to sign up to read the article, but when you try it a second time it seems to work ok.)
-
Evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest” – that’s a common misnomer…
And where did I mention evolution, once again we are talking about survival......like introducing the idea that rational or true ideas are immune to survival bias...A red Herring on your part.
-
Vlad,
And where did I mention evolution, once again we are talking about survival......like introducing the idea that rational or true ideas are immune to survival bias...A red Herring on your part.
No, it's the same mistake - in natural systems it's survival of the best adapted, not the "fittest". In purposive systems though (ie man-made ones like religions), it's survival by happenstance as the article illustrates.
-
In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.
It's telling, I think, that the stories associated with the crucifixion in each of the four gospels are broadly similar right up until the moment that corresponds to Mark 16:8. After that the stories diverge (except Mark, which just stops). The most likely explanation seems to me that the other three authors were just copying Mark and each made up their own stories (or collected different oral traditions) to fill in the post resurrection void.
-
Vlad,
No, it's the same mistake - in natural systems it's survival of the best adapted, not the "fittest". In purposive systems though (ie man-made ones like religions), it's survival by happenstance as the article illustrates.
There may be features of Christianity as a religion that make it better adapted to survive and grow in the conditions that pertained in Europe over the last two millennia. It may not be purely happenstance.
For example, great emphasis is placed on proselytism. Go out and spread the word is a big message of Christianity. Also, Christianity is not a religion that is tolerant of other beliefs ("I am a jealous god" etc). These two facets alone make for a religion that spreads fast and displaces other beliefs. Then there's the fact that Christianity is a religion that discourages rebellion against the status quo (render unto Caesar etc). This makes it attractive as a tool for rulers. There were probably several religions that Constantine could have chosen to help mould his empire. Why did he choose Christianity? Probably because he knew he could use it.
-
Hi Jeremy,
There may be features of Christianity as a religion that make it better adapted to survive and grow in the conditions that pertained in Europe over the last two millennia. It may not be purely happenstance.
For example, great emphasis is placed on proselytism. Go out and spread the word is a big message of Christianity. Also, Christianity is not a religion that is tolerant of other beliefs ("I am a jealous god" etc). These two facets alone make for a religion that spreads fast and displaces other beliefs. Then there's the fact that Christianity is a religion that discourages rebellion against the status quo (render unto Caesar etc). This makes it attractive as a tool for rulers. There were probably several religions that Constantine could have chosen to help mould his empire. Why did he choose Christianity? Probably because he knew he could use it.
Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.
Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.
Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.
Yes, just to be clear, the reasons I gave for why Christianity might be successful have nothing to do with truth. If that's Vlad's argument, he is on dangerous ground because it will only be a matter of time before somebody points out that, once you correct for Christianity's 600 year head start, Islam is much more successful (and therefore by Vlad's argument: much more true). Let's hope for Vlad's sake that nobody does that.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.
Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.
Once again you are putting words in my mouth. It is you a few posts back that suggested Secular Humanism would survive because it was 'underpinned by reason'. That is not true now it seems. Jeremy seems to be superimposing the idea of success as a religion. I'm not sure what that has to do with survival.
I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents. But there is no judaism without Jews.I
think i've outlined why I think the Gospel is true without recourse to this silly argument.
-
Vlad,
Once again you are putting words in my mouth.
I’m doing no such thing (I leave that kind of thing to you).
It is you a few posts back that suggested Secular Humanism would survive because it was 'underpinned by reason'. That is not true now it seems.
Yes it is. The difference between faith claims and rationalism is the difference between subjective and objective. Try to grasp this.
Jeremy seems to be superimposing the idea of success as a religion. I'm not sure what that has to do with survival.
No, he’s saying that if some religions are better adapted than others (ie, they better suit the prevailing conditions) that would influence their chances of surviving. Thus if, say, the Romans are in charge and are at war with the Goths and one religion says “kill the Romans” and the other, “kill the Goths” they’ll likely endorse the latter. That though does not for one moment suggest that the various myths and miracle stories of the latter faith are more true than those of the former.
Again, try to grasp this – it’s what survivorship bias entails.
I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents. But there is no judaism without Jews.I think…
That’s special pleading. If any faith is true then it’s true whether or not it has adherents.
i've outlined why I think the Gospel is true without recourse to this silly argument.
And I’ve explained to (several times in fact) why your arguments about this are wrong. Why won’t you at least try to address the rebuttals you’re given?
-
Vlad,
I’m doing no such thing (I leave that kind of thing to you).
Yes it is. The difference between faith claims and rationalism is the difference between subjective and objective. Try to grasp this.
Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk and survivor bias as the reason Christianity survived is a bit of a rabbit hole we should concentrate on your false equation between secular humanism and literal rationalism since secular humanism contains much that is not established by science. Now you may argue that SH is based on science I would argue that it is based on a moral philosophy. Certainly to say that rationalism = secular humanism=objective is misleading.
That and the fact that rationality does not necessarily mean survival rather undoes your argument.
As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning. In true new atheist style you turn your ignorance into authority.
-
Vlad,
Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk and survivor bias as the reason Christianity survived is a bit of a rabbit hole we should concentrate on your false equation between secular humanism and literal rationalism since secular humanism contains much that is not established by science. Now you may argue that SH is based on science I would argue that it is based on a moral philosophy. Certainly to say that rationalism = secular humanism=objective is misleading.
That and the fact that rationality does not necessarily mean survival rather undoes your argument.
As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning. In true new atheist style you turn your ignorance into authority.
Fun as it may be for some to watch someone spit the dummy after losing the argument, I find it unedifying. For what it’s worth and to try to help you though:
1. “Secular” humanism is a tautology; it’s just “humanism”.
2. Humanism is rationalist in character. See here to put you straight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#:~:text=Secular%20humanism%2C%20often%20simply%20called,of%20morality%20and%20decision%20making
Note especially:
“Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.”
3. You cannot argue that a claim of fact (eg a resurrection) must be examined differently because it has a religious “context”. Either it happened or it didn’t, and you can't just retrofit different standards of evidence because the consequence would have special significance for you. To think otherwise is akin to my claiming that you fail to grasp that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbow because you’re not applying my leprechaunal context to the claim.
As you’ve failed again even to attempt to address the arguments that undo you though I guess I should know better by now a it’s a fool’s errand to try to educate the uneducable.
More fool me eh?
-
As far as I am aware other Humanists are available.
2. Humanism is rationalist in character. See here to put you straight:
Apart from the empirical and moral aspects of which many are faith based eg the basically good belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#:~:text=Secular%20humanism%2C%20often%20simply%20called,of%20morality%20and%20decision%20making
Note especially:
3. You cannot argue that a claim of fact (eg a resurrection) must be examined differently because it has a religious “context”.
Not sure what you mean here.
A resurrection does not need a religious context to study it.
-
Vlad,
Not sure what you mean here.
A resurrection does not need a religious context to study it.
You were the one saying the claim should be considered with a "religious context", not me. You tell me what mean by it.
As for "the documents" at issue, they should be treated with the same tools and methods of historicity as any other. And when those tools and methods are applied, they fail - which is why the resurrection story isn't taught as a fact in academic history.
-
Vlad,
You were the one saying the claim should be considered with a "religious context", not me. You tell me what mean by it.
As for "the documents" at issue, they should be treated with the same tools and methods of historicity as any other. And when those tools and methods are applied, they fail - which is why the resurrection story isn't taught as a fact in academic history.
They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection. The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.
Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.
-
Vlad,
They don’t fail though…
Of course they do – that’s why they’re not taught in history lessons.
…the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection.
So?
The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.
Just as the objections to alchemy are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of chemistry, the objections to astrology are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of astronomy, and for that matter the objections to theism are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of philosophy.
Historicity entails naturalistic methods of verification. Your problem if you want to junk that is that you have no other method with which to replace it, and so you must also junk it for any other ancient miracle claim (which is when you always run way).
Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.
Yes – you stand squarely with alchemy and with astrology. How does that help you?
-
Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk
Oh yes, we know that very well.
As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning.
Yes, that really does seem like bollocks to me.
It seems to me that, if Judaism is true, it's still true even if the Jews are all gone, just like Christianity. By contrast, if all knowledge of either Christianity or Judaism were lost, there's no way they'd ever be rediscovered.
-
They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection.
Nope - wrong again. The earliest copies of the epistles are from hundreds of years after the purported resurrection, so all we can say for sure is that at that point we have evidence that people believed it - that's hardly hold the front page news is it Vlad.
And regardless - just because someone believes something - even if they are contemporaneous or even an eye witness - doesn't mean it is true.
So effectively your argument boils down to - people believed in the resurrection. Well, no shit Sherlock, I think we already knew that. But equally others didn't believe in it. And in terms of the dominant view amongst people in the place and at the time of the purported resurrection it appears that most people didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah and presumably also didn't believe in the resurrection as it is hard to see how you could believe in the resurrection and not become a christian.
So back to the drawing board Vlad. Come back when you have an argument that is remotely convincing.
-
I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents.
But equally if Christianity isn't true then it would still not be true even if everyone in the world was an adherent.
The veracity of a claim and belief in a claim are entirely different matters. The truth requires evidence not just belief.
-
Nope - wrong again. The earliest copies of the epistles are from hundreds of years after the purported resurrection, so all we can say for sure is that at that point we have evidence that people believed it - that's hardly hold the front page news is it
Extant copies of these epistles are found far earlier than histories of the time which are accepted by Historians
I find your notion that Christianity appeared around 150 AD to 200 AD needs a fair bit of back up... No Christians before this time? hmm interesting. It is far more probable that the epistles which after all are internal memos rather than histories were doing the rounds far earlier. It's possible for a History to lie around unseen for centuries. There is a whole host of patristic literature testifying to the apostles and their message. All of this has to have as you suggest appear/be written centuries later for your thesis to hold.
-
They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection. The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.
Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.
It's ironic isn't though that one of the most famous and earliest of the epistles is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter, written to the Church in Corinth, Paul argues quite strenuously for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you suppose he needed to do that? Does it not seem like evidence that there were some in the Christian church of Corinth that did not believe in the physical Resurrection?
It seems to me like 1 Corinthians is good evidence that there was uncertainty in the early Christian Church surrounding the resurrection and whether it really happened in the way that most Christians today believe.
-
But equally if Christianity isn't true then it would still not be true even if everyone in the world was an adherent
Yes I'm sure that is so. However I put that in to demonstrate to the school of ''religions are basically all the same and a religious person would frankly be satisfied with any old shit'' forum representatives Prof Davey and B Hillside, that that isn't so.
-
It's ironic isn't though that one of the most famous and earliest of the epistles is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter, written to the Church in Corinth, Paul argues quite strenuously for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you suppose he needed to do that? Does it not seem like evidence that there were some in the Christian church of Corinth that did not believe in the physical Resurrection?
I cannot fault this and have in the past used it to argue against the idea that the first century was an age of Gullibility.
-
Vlad,
Yes I'm sure that is so. However I put that in to demonstrate to the school of ''religions are basically all the same and a religious person would frankly be satisfied with any old shit'' forum representatives Prof Davey and B Hillside, that that isn't so.
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED
-
Vlad,
Me:
Historicity entails naturalistic methods of verification. Your problem if you want to junk that is that you have no other method with which to replace it, and so you must also junk it for any other ancient miracle claim (which is when you always run way).
You:
An lo! truly does blue have the power of prophecy say I...
-
Vlad,
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED
That's not unique to religions. To take an example in current 'non religion', the idea punted by some Trans Rights Activists that transwomen are women or TWAW for short is faith mantra.
-
It seems to me like 1 Corinthians is good evidence that there was uncertainty in the early Christian Church surrounding the resurrection and whether it really happened in the way that most Christians today believe.
I think we have very little evidence so help us understand what early Christians did believe. And I doubt they were in any way a homogenous group in terms of belief. The notion of the heretics supports this, and that isn't even from the earliest period.
Now one thing which is commonly accepted is that many, or at least some, early Christians saw their belief as the equivalence of a 'doomsday' cult. Effectively that the end of the world was coming really soon and only believers in Jesus got to come out it well as Jesus was coming back within their lifetime. Now if Jesus was coming back very soon (in a few years) then the notion of the resurrection is kind of superfluous - why would he need to die, to then be reborn, to then kind of die again, to then kind of come back again - all within a few years.
So for those people the resurrection could easily have been the return of Jesus from the dead (i.e. the second coming). Now of course when it became clear that there was no sign of a returning Jesus the embarrassment could be readily dealt with by the notion of an earlier resurrection, immediately post death.
So I can see an early christian argument between the 'resurrection as second coming' and 'resurrection as immediate return from dead, followed by second coming'.
Of course we have no evidence for any of these purported events and precious little evidence for the actual beliefs of the various factions of early christians. We only really know what happened once an orthodox view developed within the 'winners' of the debate amongst early christians several hundred years after the death of Jesus.
-
NS,
That's not unique to religions. To take an example in current 'non religion', the idea punted by some Trans Rights Activists that transwomen are women or TWAW for short is faith mantra.
I agree that it's certainly not unique to religions. Not by a long way. Not sure about the trans issue though - presumably they don't argue that, say, transwomen should have the right to a hysterectomy do they?
-
One interesting aspect of eye-witness testimony concerns road traffic accidents. Many people say, and believe, that they saw the accident, but in fact in many cases they heard the crash, and immediately turned round, and subconsciously made assumptions about what happened from the positions of the vehicles.
-
Vlad,
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit"
Out and out gruff gammonism. Which, as the fourth ''Alf Garnett of the apocalypse'' Richard Dawkins shows us by example, is where New Atheism ends up.
-
Vlad,
Out and out gruff gammonism. Which, as the fourth ''Alf Garnett of the apocalypse'' Richard Dawkins shows us by example, is where New Atheism ends up.
Do you have an argument to make?
-
NS,
I agree that it's certainly not unique to religions. Not by a long way. Not sure about the trans issue though - presumably they don't argue that, say, transwomen should have the right to a hysterectomy do they?
There are those arguing rather for uterus implants, and for general access to gynaecological care, and there's a thread if you want to investigate on this.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0
-
Vlad,
Do you have an argument to make?
Yes Alf. This ''Johnny Speight'' of a statement is so riddled with your personal prejudices and unjustified assertions, it needs you to make a case for it.
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED
-
Vlad,
Yes Alf. This ''Johnny Speight'' of a statement is so riddled with your personal prejudices and unjustified assertions, it needs you to make a case for it.
Quote
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED
I know you struggle with the concept of argument, but why not try at least to explain which part of what I said you don’t agree with and why?
You know, just this once actually try to argue for something.
-
Vlad,
I know you struggle with the concept of argument, but why not try at least to explain which part of what I said you don’t agree with and why?
You know, just this once actually try to argue for something.
Hillside, you made the assertion that religious people are satisfied with any old shit. Please Justify. What do you mean by it?
-
Vlad,
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims,
You mean reason like this?
Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'
Everyone else - 'Why?'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - there's no more evidence for your resurrection than any of the others. Why is yours more important'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - why wont you engage with the point?'
Vlad - 'I'll squeem and squeeze until I'm sick. Yah boo - secular humanism, Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins'
:o
-
Typical.
-
Typical.
?
-
There are those arguing rather for uterus implants, and for general access to gynaecological care, and there's a thread if you want to investigate on this.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0
Not on the NHS, I hope!
-
You mean reason like this?
I was using that post to indicate the paucity of cogent argument that we typically get from you Vlad, in a slightly humorous manner.
-
I was using that post to indicate the paucity of cogent argument that we typically get from you Vlad, in a slightly humorous manner.
I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.
-
I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.
I think that's for others to judge.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, you made the assertion that religious people are satisfied with any old shit. Please Justify. What do you mean by it?
I meant by it what you meant by it when you introduced that phrase. Absent any means or method to investigate and verify the faith claims all religions make (the point at which you always run away) “any old shit” as you put it seems apt to me. By all means show me to be wrong though and finally, after all these years, suggest a method to distinguish the faith claims in which you happen to believe from the faith claims from all the other religious traditions.
I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.
A false report – and that will continue to be until and unless you do actually manage an argument to justify your claims and assertions that isn’t hopeless.
-
Vlad,
I meant by it what you meant by it when you introduced that phrase. Absent any means or method to investigate and verify the faith claims all religions make (the point at which you always run away) “any old shit” as you put it seems apt to me. By all means show me to be wrong though and finally, after all these years, suggest a method to distinguish the faith claims in which you happen to believe from the faith claims from all the other religious traditions.
I just preempted your reaction and correctly assertained the value you put on religion. Religion, particularly the world religions cannot IMHO be looked upon as ''just shit''. This stuff survives. Judaism is about a people of a nation as much as anything else. Christianity is not about the survival of any nation but about the salvation of individuals, Islam is about submission to God, Hinduism is philosophy expressed as narrative and so on and so forth. By your own admission you think this is old shit.
I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.
Why religious people are not likely to believe in leprechauns or indeed Santa has been explained to you many times...So Leprechauns and Ant Gods are the type of old shit I am talking about.
-
Vlad,
I just preempted your reaction and correctly assertained the value you put on religion. Religion, particularly the world religions cannot IMHO be looked upon as ''just shit''.
Did anyone say they were? What I actually said was: “Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have).”
Your straw man here is to change the reference to the epistemological value of faith-based claims to the general statement that religions in toto are “just shit”.
This stuff survives. Judaism is about a people of a nation as much as anything else. Christianity is not about the survival of any nation but about the salvation of individuals, Islam is about submission to God, Hinduism is philosophy expressed as narrative and so on and so forth. By your own admission you think this is old shit.
I said no such thing.
I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.
What are you trying to say here?
Why religious people are not likely to believe in leprechauns or indeed Santa has been explained to you many times...So Leprechauns and Ant Gods are the type of old shit I am talking about.
And what’s been explained to you many, many times is that the analogy isn’t between leprechauns/Santa and gods at all. Rather the analogy concerns the use of the arguments attempted to justify beliefs in these things. Thus if an argument tried to validate your claim “god” works equally for my claim “leprechauns” then either both are true, or it’s a bad argument.
Why this simple point eludes you such that you resort to straw man version of it whenever it occurs is beyond me, and you’re still avoiding your central problem of framing an argument for one faith-based fact claim that distinguishes it epistemically from any other faith-based fact claim.
Why?
-
I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.
But christianity is achingly parochial, which is one of the reasons why it seems so limited and limiting given what we now know about the universe (which of course the people who developed christianity knew nothing about).
So christianity is a religion that effectively speaks to just one species on a single planet. Realistically much narrower that that - a religion based around the people's in one place (palestine) at a tiny blink of an eye in terms of universe time. It has nothing to say to other species, even on this planet, nothing to say to the rest of the universe, nothing to say to people from the millions of years of human history prior to the 1stC, likely nothing to say to humans in millions of years time.
So christianity is just that - a local pantheon, and the most local of local. If you want something that goes beyond that you need a religion or view that is equally relevant to some potential life in some other part of the universe, billions of years ago or billions of years from now. And actually it should go beyond mere 'life' and be inherently relevant to all matter, whether living or not.
-
But christianity is achingly parochial, which is one of the reasons why it seems so limited and limiting given what we now know about the universe (which of course the people who developed christianity knew nothing about).
Christianity is a world religion with cosmic interest. It is not an alternative to knowledge about nature but it focusses on the Divine. Science is a method. Scientism is a belief
So christianity is a religion that effectively speaks to just one species on a single planet.
So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man, perhaps other species get a free pass. How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species? Realistically much narrower that that - a religion based around the people's in one place (palestine)
No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion at a tiny blink of an eye in terms of universe time.
Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important? It has nothing to say to other species, even on this planet, nothing to say to the rest of the universe, nothing to say to people from the millions of years of human history prior to the 1stC, likely nothing to say to humans in millions of years time.
If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.
I think this theme of advanced conscious civilisation has been well addressed in the film ''Forbidden Planet''
So christianity is just that - a local pantheon, and the most local of local.
I think you know by now the reasons I disagree with you If you want something that goes beyond that you need a religion or view that is equally relevant to some potential life in some other part of the universe, billions of years ago or billions of years from now. And actually it should go beyond mere 'life' and be inherently relevant to all matter, whether living or not.
How does life elsewhere and in the future impinge on our need for salvation? Sounds like an excuse to avoid God by escaping into the past future and into space.
-
Christianity is a world religion with cosmic interest.
It is very limited as a world religion as it speaks pretty well exclusively to a single species (guess what the world doesn't revolve around humans). It has no meaningful cosmic engagement, not least because the people who developed Christianity had no meaningful understanding of the cosmos.
So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man ...
It is entirely anthropocentric and therefore cannot be considered to be anything other than parochial. A religion or belief that is so entirely focussed on one species on one planet, largely within a time timeframe in terms of the history of that planet (let alone the cosmos) is parochial.
... perhaps other species get a free pass.
Do they? Why doesn't Christianity tell us ... oh yes, I forgot, it's because it is only interested in humans.
How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species?
Wrong question - why would you need to 'assess' spirituality. It may well be that 'spirituality' as you call it (but isn't really defined) is an inherently human characteristic and the notion that a religion like christianity places emphasis on spirituality shows again it is anthropocentric.
No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important? If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.
In other words it is a religion by humans, for humans - in what way can that be considered global (note we are just one species) let alone cosmic in its reach and outlook.
Point is that I (and perhaps others) see christianity as achingly anthropocentric and therefore man-made and for-humans. It therefore doesn't come close to rocking my boat if I want to understand 'the meaning of life' as those Alpha courses claim that Christianity will reveal.
It is a bit like wanting to understand the relevance of sport - to be told that its relevance is entirely about the 1960/61 season of the Spurs football team.
-
If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.
What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".
-
What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".
Indeed.
And what relevance is 'salvation' to a small moon circling a planet in a solar system on the other side of our galaxy. One that might not include any life. That christianity continually focusses on matters that are entirely human-centric (albeit not even universally human-centric) tells use that we are dealing with a religion made by humans for humans.
-
What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".
By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God from others and indeed one self.
What other magic bullet exists out there?
-
Vlad,
Christianity is a world religion…
Just as the Egyptian or the Roman gods were the "world" religions for the world as their Empires understood them to be. So?
…with cosmic interest.
What “cosmic interest”? Do you mean the actual cosmos that astronomy tells us about (about which your “holy” texts are silent), or the mythological faith one (heaven, hell etc)?
It is not an alternative to knowledge about nature but it focusses on the Divine.
Yes it is. “The divine’ is not nature.
Science is a method.
Actually it’s a method and an accumulation of knowledge.
Scientism is a belief
That no-one I know of subscribes to, despite your endless misattribution of it to people here.
So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man, perhaps other species get a free pass.
What “need for salvation of man”? That’s just another baseless faith claim.
How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species?
You have yet to demonstrate that there’s such a thing as a “spiritual life” at all. Whether non-human species would have it too is therefore a second order matter to that.
No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion
One of several, and only because “the world” it occupies has better communications than the worlds that predecessor religions occupied. Oh, and why just this relatively minuscule world in any case?
Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important?
It’s important if you want to claim that your religion that occupies a tiny slice of the universe in time and space has any significance beyond those extremely narrow limits. Why would a god that had created the whole Sahara be interested in only one of its grains of sand?
If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.
Non sequitur. The “therefore “ fails because you’ve yet to establish your premise. “In need of salvation” remains just theobabble until you can finally show it to be more than just a baseless faith claim.
I think this theme of advanced conscious civilisation has been well addressed in the film ''Forbidden Planet''
?
I think you know by now the reasons I disagree with you
And you know now why those reasons are all wrong.
How does life elsewhere and in the future impinge on our need for salvation? Sounds like an excuse to avoid God by escaping into the past future and into space.
Again, “the need for salvation” is just superstitious drivel. Demonstrate such a thing rather than just parrot it and there’ll be something to talk about. Until then though, it’s epistemically equivalent to my need for leprechauns to leave pots of gold at the ends or rainbows.
Apart from all that though..
-
Vlad,
By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God from others and indeed one self.
What other magic bullet exists out there?
Apposite use of "magic" there, "its magic innit?" being effectively your recourse when asked to justify the various faith claims you make.
What "other" magic answers could there be? Well, there's magic leprechauns for starters...
-
It is very limited as a world religion as it speaks pretty well exclusively to a single species
OK this is going beyond a joke, what does speak to other species. Are you trying to say you are Dr Doolittle? What are you on about? (guess what the world doesn't revolve around humans).[/quote]No but I understand that human greed , commerce and the quest for identification through consumption( seen positively by some as ''Enlightenment'') has played a big part in the global crisis
It has no meaningful cosmic engagement, not least because the people who developed Christianity had no meaningful understanding of the cosmos.
They didn't have science but science is a different domain to religion and, as far as christianity is concerned science is a tool.
It is entirely anthropocentric
So I understand are midwifery, surgery and psychology and therefore cannot be considered to be anything other than parochial.
But only if you are given to hyperbole .Do they? Why doesn't Christianity tell us ... oh yes, I forgot, it's because it is only interested in humans.
I don't think that is so and so what if it doesn't wear it's animal and plant welfare concerns on it's sleeve. Wrong question - why would you need to 'assess' spirituality. It may well be that 'spirituality' as you call it (but isn't really defined) is an inherently human characteristic and the notion that a religion like christianity places emphasis on spirituality shows again it is anthropocentric.
In other words it is a religion by humans, for humans - in what way can that be considered global (note we are just one species) let alone cosmic in its reach and outlook.
Point is that I (and perhaps others) see christianity as achingly anthropocentric and therefore man-made and for-humans. It therefore doesn't come close to rocking my boat if I want to understand 'the meaning of life' as those Alpha courses claim that Christianity will reveal.
I think you have a very, very narrow view of christianity. Now science is a tool. You can use it, I can use it. You say we are all spiritual I say we are all scientific. Proving at the very least you have thrown in one thing of little importance.
I think I need to warn you again of the dangers of scientism and the misuse of science as a way of achieving ecstacy, i.e. taking yourself out of having to survey your self and your inner life.
-
Vlad,
Apposite use of "magic" there, "its magic innit?" being effectively your recourse when asked to justify the various faith claims you make.
What "other" magic answers could there be? Well, there's magic leprechauns for starters...
I think it was Pasteur who referred to his Rabies vaccine as ''A magic bullet'' so I'm afraid your input is rather wasted here. I fear the Prof is a bit given to scientism like yourself.
-
Vlad,
I think it was Pasteur who referred to his Rabies vaccine as ''A magic bullet'' so I'm afraid your input is rather wasted here. I fear the Prof is a bit given to scientism like yourself.
Lying about people's supposed adherence to scientism when they've consistently told you they do no such thing won't dig you out of the hole you've made for yourself.
My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.
Oh well.
-
Vlad,
Lying about people's supposed adherence to scientism when they've consistently told you they do no such thing won't dig you out of the hole you've made for yourself.
My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.
Oh well.
It is my fear, Hillside. On the other hand he could be on the brink of a new religion fit not only for this millenium but for aeons to come.
-
Vlad,
Me:
…My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.
You:
It is my fear, Hillside. On the other hand he could be on the brink of a new religion fit not only for this millenium but for aeons to come.
QED. Truly my powers of prophecy are beginning to astound even me now.
Maybe I’m god?
-
Unevidenced assertion and doubling implausible as there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.
Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.
-
Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.
You are very credulous and lack skepticism
-
Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels.
All four gospels - you mean those documents purported to have been written decades after the event and where the early actual copies of the claim we have is likely from 150-200 years after the event. So a claim in a gospel (or even all four) is the flimsiest of evidence that what was claimed to have happened actually happened.
Add in that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that angels actually exist, so without the a priori evidence for the existence of angels any specific claim of angels is moot.
So what we are left with, even if we soften our criteria for credible eye witness evidence (which doesn't involve hearsay from hundreds of years later with no independent corroborative evidence) we are left with some people finding an empty tomb. There are all sorts of credible explanations for this, as I've stated early. The least credible is that a dead person suddenly came alive again.
-
You are very credulous and lack skepticism
Indeed he is.
But I suspect he'd be less credulous and skeptical about similarly fantastical claims not associated with his religion. For example Icarus and Daedalus and their (literal) flight from Crete.
But religion people so often adopt double standards - applying completely different standards for the 'evidence' associated with the fantastical claims of their religion to the fantastical claims of other religions and myths.
-
By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God
Still not a universal human characteristic.
What other magic bullet exists out there?
Magic bullet for what?
-
Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.
The gospels are not the proceedings of a trial. The women found the empty tomb because it was women's work to prepare bodies for burial. The gospel writers presumably thought it would be more realistic to have them find the tomb.
Plus there's evidence that Christianity was not quite as misogynistic in the early days as it became later.
-
Still not a universal human characteristic.
There is often insufficient observation and self reflection...which actually would be made worse by adopting Davey’s suggested way of seeing the universe. God dodging, bad feeling and alienation in the world are symptomsMagic bullet for what?
For getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.
-
The gospels are not the proceedings of a trial. The women found the empty tomb because it was women's work to prepare bodies for burial. The gospel writers presumably thought it would be more realistic to have them find the tomb.
Plus there's evidence that Christianity was not quite as misogynistic in the early days as it became later.
But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men. Also, if it was a conspiracy, why didn't they harmonize their details - how many angels, etc - before writing their accounts?
-
You are very credulous and lack skepticism
and, lacking video evidence, criteria of historicity will have to do
-
There is often insufficient observation and self reflection...
Not the same thing as everybody needing to be saved.
which actually would be made worse by adopting Davey’s suggested way of seeing the universe. God dodging, bad feeling and alienation in the world are symptomsFor getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.
What's wrong with God dodging? Everybody does it
-
But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men.
What's your evidence that it was embarrassing to the early Christians?
Also, if it was a conspiracy, why didn't they harmonize their details - how many angels, etc - before writing their accounts?
Did I say it was a conspiracy. It could simply be that Mark wrote the women in and then the other writers copied him, embellishing the story as they saw fit.
-
and, lacking video evidence, criteria of historicity will have to do
But applying the criteria for historicity this claim fails woefully, just as the claim that Icarus and Daedalus flew from Crete.
For a claim to be considered credible under the criteria for historicity it needs to go way beyond a narrative written decades (and the earliest copy from hundreds of years later) making a claim. You'd expect some kind of corroborative narrative or archeological evidence, ideally both and ideally some evidence that is contemporaneous and non-partial (i.e. from people with no agenda to make such a claim).
For the claim in the gospels none of that is present and it includes a fantastic claim of angels (for which there is no evidence of their existence). So if you compare the story of Icarus and Daedalus and the story of the woman at the tomb and you are objective in applying the criteria for historicity you'd struggle to determine which is less credible. But realistically neither holds any meaningful credibility.
-
But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men.
There is no evidence that angels exist, so whether a non-existent entity speaks to a man or a non-existent entity speaks to a woman seems rather irrelevant, doesn't it.
Would you accept a claim that unicorns only appear to children as being credible?
-
Not the same thing as everybody needing to be saved.
It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs. Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging
What's wrong with God dodging? Everybody does it
Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.
It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.
-
It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs. Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging
Says you: the (not so) Artful Dodger, given your trademark evasiveness.
Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.
It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.
Which is begging the question, with an added dash of reification.
-
Vlad,
For getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.
Well that's Christianity dead in the water then...
-
Vlad,
It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs.
How some people are and feel. Others of us though are not so afflicted.
Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging
No, the only "dodging" here is the non-acceptance of the stories some people tell themselves to assuage their existential fear of mortality.
Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.
Circular reasoning: god is real because god shows he's real.
It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.
Argument by assertion. Tell us first what you mean by "God", demonstrate its existence and explain why it's "holy". Good luck with that.
-
Says you: the (not so) Artful Dodger, given your trademark evasiveness.
Which is begging the question, with an added dash of reification.
Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.
-
Vlad,
Well that's Christianity dead in the water then...
But what exactly is it that will meet Davey's desires? Including something that speaks to other species....what ever he means by that.
veganism perhaps.
I find it ironic that at a convention on cosmology Paul Davies called Dawkins out for his parochial concerns. So maybe Davey is just projecting New atheism's parochialism.
-
Vlad,
Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.
Dubious premise, fallacy of reification and a non sequitur. You've scored a hat-trick!
-
Vlad,
How some people are and feel. Others of us though are not so afflicted. That could just be hardness of heart or blunting of conscience.
No, the only "dodging" here is the non-acceptance of the stories some people tell themselves to assuage their existential fear of mortality.
Dawkinsian bravado on your part. First of all we all have that that is why we don't check ourselves out and only do under torment. It seems Davey wants an all encompassing whatever a cosmic greatness and connectiveness in which he can lose himself and never have to make any inner investigation again.
-
Vlad,
But what exactly is it that will meet Davey's desires? Including something that speaks to other species....what ever he means by that.
veganism perhaps.
What desires? So far as I can tell he hasn’t said he has any.
I find it ironic that at a convention on cosmology Paul Davies called Dawkins out for his parochial concerns. So maybe Davey is just projecting New atheism's parochialism.
==
Just out of interest, is there any discussion about any subject at all that you won’t drag Richard Dawkins into? Plumbing? Morris dancing?
I have no idea what Davies said (you haven’t provided a citation) but if RD was addressing religion then it’s hardly surprising if he was playing on its parochial turf I’d have thought.
-
Vlad,
That could just be hardness of heart or blunting of conscience.
Or the very opposite of those things.
Dawkinsian bravado on your part. First of all we all have that that is why we don't check ourselves out and only do under torment. It seems Davey wants an all encompassing whatever a cosmic greatness and connectiveness in which he can lose himself and never have to make any inner investigation again.
Did you have a coherent thought in your head when you eructated that dog's breakfast of a paragraph?
-
Vlad,
What desires? So far as I can tell he hasn’t said he has any.
Just out of interest, is there any discussion about any subject at all that you won’t drag Richard Dawkins into? Plumbing? Morris dancing?
I have no idea what Davies said (you haven’t provided a citation) but if RD was addressing religion then it’s hardly surprising if he was playing on its parochial turf I’d have thought.
Dawkins is obsessed by religion. Davies was commenting the inappropriateness of Dawkins inappropriately spouting his cobblers at a symposium of cosmologists.
Davey bemoans Christianity for being parochial and not cosmic enough. He must therefore desire something better. What can that thing be?......come on Hillside spit it out, you know you want to.
Drag Dawkins into Plumbing? I don't think those limp lily white hands have encountered anything nasty like that.
-
Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.
Nope: I may find the idea of 'God' abhorrent, or rather ideas, since there are so many of them, but not in the least "exhilarating". I'm genuinely mystified that these ideas are taken seriously by some.
-
Vlad,
Dawkins is obsessed by religion.
He’s written and spoken about it a lot, especially post 9/11. Whether he’s “obsessed” with it though is doubtful – he certainly seems to be less obsessed with religion than you are with him
Davies was commenting the inappropriateness of Dawkins inappropriately spouting his cobblers at a symposium of cosmologists.
Again, where’s the citation? If you think RD was “spouting cobblers” then you need to do more than just assert it to be so.
Davey bemoans Christianity for being parochial and not cosmic enough. He must therefore desire something better. What can that thing be?......come on Hillside spit it out, you know you want to.
Wrong again. He’s just saying that religions claim knowledge by faith they cannot know by reason or evidence. They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial – both claimed truths about their universes as they understood them to be, but those understandings were limited by their abilities to access and investigate their universes. As is ours.
Drag Dawkins into Plumbing? I don't think those limp lily white hands have encountered anything nasty like that.
And nor 90% of the other stuff you routinely lay at his door.
-
They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial – both claimed truths about their universes as they understood them to be, but those understandings were limited by their abilities to access and investigate their universes.
Exactly and rather better put than I did. Effectively christianity claims to provide not just truths, but The Truth, about the universe but its view of the universe is both faulty (as it is based on inadequate understanding of the universe from the 1stC) and also completely lacks perspective as its only perspective is that of one species on one planet in a blink of an eye in universe-time.
-
Wrong again. He’s just saying that religions claim knowledge by faith they cannot know by reason or evidence.
He speaks as though they are not enough. What then is? You are both dancing around answering this. They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial
No they aren't. They never became world religions, probably because of their insistence on the politically important being divine. Same for Japanese religion and the island that believes that Prince Philip was the spirit of the island gone abroad.
-
Vlad,
He speaks as though they are not enough. What then is? You are both dancing around answering this.
What are you trying to ask here?
You can't make claims of universal truths unless you know what "the universe" is. By magnitudes religions know less about that than science does - their grasp extends beyond their reach. QED
-
) and also completely lacks perspective as its only perspective is that of one species on one planet in a blink of an eye in universe-time.
How do you obtain the perspective of more than your own species?
-
Vlad,
No they aren't. They never became world religions, probably because of their insistence on the politically important being divine. Same for Japanese religion and the island that believes that Prince Philip was the spirit of the island gone abroad.
But they extended to "the world" as they understood it, just as Christianity extends to "the world" as we understand it. Both are limited by the range of their instruments ships (the latter literally in fact, being seagoing and space respectively). On a comparable basis the Egyptian and Roman worlds were virtually the same as ours given the grand perspective of the vastness of the universe as a whole.
Even for you this is poor thinking Vladdo.
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to ask here?
If Christianity doesn't give sufficient perspective of the cosmos(Davey)and that somehow leaves Christianity wanting...what will give us that?
-
Vlad,
How do you obtain the perspective of more than your own species?
Currently you can't - so why try to claim it?
-
Vlad,
If Christianity doesn't give sufficient perspective of the cosmos(Davey)and that somehow leaves Christianity wanting...what will give us that?
So far, nothing. That's why science limits itself to claims it can justify.
-
Vlad,
But they extended to "the world" as they understood it, just as Christianity extends to "the world" as we understand it. Both are limited by the range of their instruments ships (the latter literally in fact, being seagoing and space respectively). On a comparable basis the Egyptian and Roman worlds were virtually the same as ours given the grand perspective of the vastness of the universe as a whole.
Even for you this is poor thinking Vladdo.
Non sequitur.
-
Vlad,
So far, nothing.
So far? So far? How far and far up what? What is it we have to go further up?
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur.
Pro bono.
Your turn for the inappropriate Latin phrase...
(... or alternatively you could look up what non sequitur actually means).
-
Vlad,
So far? So far? How far and far up what? What is it we have to go further up?
Gibberish. The point here is that you can't just assert truths you cannot justify - which is what religions attempt.
-
Vlad,
Gibberish. The point here is that you can't just assert truths you cannot justify - which is what religions attempt.
Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species. How is that ever going to happen? And secondly if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.
And then of course is he right about religion wanting. It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless. Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of. Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say. That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge. I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.
-
Vlad,
Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species.
Why are you misrepresenting him? He’s said no such thing – what he did say was that your religion is anthropocentric in character. No more, no less.
How is that ever going to happen?
Has anyone said that it ever will happen?
And secondly…
Your “firstly” has just collapsed though…
…if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.
What on earth makes you think he does want to “get way from self-examination”? Certainly nothing he’s said here.
And then of course is he right about religion wanting.
Yes.
It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless.
Incoherence.
Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of.
Ditto.
Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say.
Fallacy of reification. If you “want to know more of god” then you need to justify the claim “god” first so as to know that there is a god to get closer to at all.
That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge.
About what?
I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe…
He’s suggested no such "vision".
…is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....
Finding no good reason to believe something is not “fleeing from something”.
…which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.
No, I’m “suggesting” that you cannot claim inerrant universal truths unless you know all the universe contains. Religions try just that though.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.
-
Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species. How is that ever going to happen? And secondly if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.
And then of course is he right about religion wanting. It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless. Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of. Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say. That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge. I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.
If you want to know what I think - why don't you ask me, rather than inferring (wrongly) what my position is.
My argument has been to point out how parochial christianity is - effectively merely focussing on one species, on one planet in the blink of an eye in universe-time terms.
It wasn't my intention, nor is there any requirement, to provide an alternative. The onus is on you to justify your beliefs and for me to critique them, not for me to be expected to create some new belief system that I don't believe in for you to knock down.
But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species. Well that isn't the point - the point is whether your 'religion' can be seen to be relevant universally. In other words is it relevant to other species on earth; is it relevant to potential life on other planets; it is relevant to non living matter throughout the universe. The resounding answer for christianity is - no - it is only relevant to one species (humans), on one planet (earth) in the blink of an eye (the past 2000 years of the several billion year history of the universe. Hence it is inherently parochial and limited.
-
Indeed he is.
But I suspect he'd be less credulous and skeptical about similarly fantastical claims not associated with his religion. For example Icarus and Daedalus and their (literal) flight from Crete.
But religion people so often adopt double standards - applying completely different standards for the 'evidence' associated with the fantastical claims of their religion to the fantastical claims of other religions and myths.
The myth about Daedalus and Icarus was first written down about 5 centuries after they supposedly lived (from what I've read about them)
-
If you want to know what I think - why don't you ask me, rather than inferring (wrongly) what my position is.
My argument has been to point out how parochial christianity is - effectively merely focussing on one species, on one planet in the blink of an eye in universe-time terms.
Shades of wishing one's life away.
It wasn't my intention, nor is there any requirement, to provide an alternative. The onus is on you to justify your beliefs and for me to critique them, not for me to be expected to create some new belief system that I don't believe in for you to knock down.
But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species. Well that isn't the point - the point is whether your 'religion' can be seen to be relevant universally. In other words is it relevant to other species on earth; is it relevant to potential life on other planets; it is relevant to non living matter throughout the universe. The resounding answer for christianity is - no - it is only relevant to one species (humans), on one planet (earth) in the blink of an eye (the past 2000 years of the several billion year history of the universe. Hence it is inherently parochial and limited.
How are you going to get the perspective of other species?
What is ''wrong'' with something applying just to humanity. I see no complaint about say, Midwifery or Psychiatry. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing science. So what is the problem?
I think that what we have been skirting about these past few posts is actually you stealthy promoting a kind of scientism. I'm afraid yours and Hillsides 'vision' of a better tomorrow rather impoverishes humanity while making putting yourself, if you hadn't notice rather in the rank of high priest of your new revelation.
-
Vlad,
Shades of wishing one's life away.
Now that actually is a non sequitur. What on earth has it to do with PD’s explanation?
But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species.
No, he’s saying that your choice of faiths doesn’t do that; it’s anthropocentric.
How are you going to get the perspective of other species?
That’s your problem, not his.
What is ''wrong'' with something applying just to humanity.
Nothing, but only provided you don’t also make no claims beyond that – certainly not universal ones.
I see no complaint about say, Midwifery or Psychiatry. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing science. So what is the problem?
That’s because these disciplines limit themselves to the subjects of which they have knowledge. Religions on the other hand reach way beyond their knowledge base.
I think that what we have been skirting about these past few posts is actually you stealthy promoting a kind of scientism.
Don’t be silly. He’s pretty much done the opposite of that (as do I).
I'm afraid yours and Hillsides 'vision' of a better tomorrow rather impoverishes humanity while making putting yourself, if you hadn't notice rather in the rank of high priest of your new revelation.
What “vision” would that be then?
You're all over the place there.
-
The myth about Daedalus and Icarus was first written down about 5 centuries after they supposedly lived (from what I've read about them)
It's always an issue, Spud, when the earliest known accounts of something are produced decades or centuries after the supposed events the accounts of this something contain: I'll leave you to cogitate on that for a while.
-
Vlad,
Now that actually is a non sequitur. What on earth has it to do with PD’s explanation?
No, he’s saying that your choice of faiths doesn’t do that; it’s anthropocentric.
That’s your problem, not his.
Nothing, but only provided you don’t also make no claims beyond that – certainly not universal ones.
That’s because these disciplines limit themselves to the subjects of which they have knowledge. Religions on the other hand reach way beyond their knowledge base.
Don’t be silly. He’s pretty much done the opposite of that (as do I).
What “vision” would that be then?
You're all over the place there.
1: Comparing world religions with local religions in the context of ''parochiality'' is as I pointed out highly debatable.
2: The parochiality of a religion which proposes the universe created ex nihilo is also highly debatable, that it only deals with humanity, so what. This seeing the perspective of other species has not been adequately explained by either of you and is probably irrelevent any way.
3: Since religions of the ''world' type are visionary and revelatory, I'm afraid you boys have been saying they are not visionary or revelatory enough and then you offered your own improvements which as point 2 shows are pointless and pretty meaningless.
4: It took a long time for Davey to respond hopefully that is you doing your normal stunt of speaking for others and not him letting you do it.
Now we could have had a fairly decent exchange but that seems impossible for you.
-
It's always an issue, Spud, when the earliest known accounts of something are produced decades or centuries after the supposed events the accounts of this something contain: I'll leave you to cogitate on that for a while.
Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth. Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.
-
Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth. Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.
Oh dear, oh dear.
How could Mark have added extra eyewitness detail? His gospel is significantly shorter than the other two.
As we have discussed before, it is highly probable that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied him whilst adding extra detail (not from eye witnesses though).
As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.
-
What's your evidence that it was embarrassing to the early Christians?
The testimony of women wasn't generally accepted in Jewish courts.
Did I say it was a conspiracy. It could simply be that Mark wrote the women in and then the other writers copied him, embellishing the story as they saw fit.
You mean Mark's 'young man dressed in white' becomes an angel in Matthew and two angels in Luke?
There are other references to angels as a young man in white, in Acts and the Apocrypha. Besides, I think Matthew was the first to write his account, not Mark.
-
Vlad,
1: Comparing world religions with local religions in the context of ''parochiality'' is as I pointed out highly debatable.
And as I corrected you, not it isn’t. “Global” just extends the range of the Egyptian and Roman pantheons by an infinitesimally small degree compared with the vastness of the universe as a whole.
2: The parochiality of a religion which proposes the universe created ex nihilo is also highly debatable, that it only deals with humanity, so what.
So everything. If you want to claim universal facts then you have to know what "the universe" is. Religions don’t know that though. The difference between science (that knows some of it) and religions (that know none of it) is that the former limits its claims to its knowledge, whereas the latter don’t.
This seeing the perspective of other species has not been adequately explained by either of you and is probably irrelevent any way.
It’s relevant because a religion concerned only with human needs points to it being human-made.
3: Since religions of the ''world' type are visionary and revelatory…
Claiming to be “visionary and revelatory” and actually being these things are very different matters. Your mistake here is the unjustified use of “since”.
I'm afraid you boys have been saying they are not visionary or revelatory enough…
No, we’re saying that there’s no good reason to think they’re visionary or revelatory at all. That’s another of your problems.
…and then you offered your own improvements which as point 2 shows are pointless and pretty meaningless.
What “improvements” do you think anyone’s offered (aside that is from the improvement of explaining that religions shouldn’t make claims they cannot know to be true)?
4: It took a long time for Davey to respond hopefully that is you doing your normal stunt of speaking for others and not him letting you do it.
Lying won’t help you here. You asked me about PD’s posts. If you didn’t want me to comment on them you shouldn’t have asked me about them
Now we could have had a fairly decent exchange but that seems impossible for you.
Yes, it is impossible for me – it’s impossible for me though because you’re entirely unable to construct arguments to justify your claims, you routinely straw man your interlocutors, your always run away when asked questions, and your near-pathological mendacity makes any meaningful exchange beyond reach. Your frequent incoherence and poor literacy don't help much either.
-
Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth.
Which is why I don't believe certain aspects of the Jesus myth are likely to be true.
Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.
It would be myth unless you can confirm that these alleged eyewitness were real people (do you have their birth certificates to hand?), and even then, since you can't exclude the risks of bias, mistake or lies in the 'gospels', then I'd say that the more fantastical aspects of the 'gospels' (such as dead people not staying dead) are more likely to be myth than not.
-
The testimony of women wasn't generally accepted in Jewish courts.
You've already asserted that (without evidence, I might add) but the gospels are not court documents and their audience was early Christians. Why would an early Christian be embarrassed that the women were the first people to be told of the resurrection? In fact (and here we see a big problem with the criterion of embarrassment), all the evidence from the gospels suggests that this fact was not embarrassing to the early Christians.
You mean Mark's 'young man dressed in white' becomes an angel in Matthew and two angels in Luke?
Actually, it's two men in Luke and two angels in John.
There are other references to angels as a young man in white, in Acts and the Apocrypha. Besides, I think Matthew was the first to write his account, not Mark.
Most people who understand the arguments disagree with you.
-
Why would an early Christian be embarrassed that the women were the first people to be told of the resurrection? In fact (and here we see a big problem with the criterion of embarrassment), all the evidence from the gospels suggests that this fact was not embarrassing to the early Christians.
Could that be because it was true? If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.
Actually, it's two men in Luke
in clothes that gleamed like lightning - angels and two angels in John.
-
If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.
Spud - all angels are made up.
-
Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth.
Is that the only reason you don't believe the story of Icarus. Might there also be the notion that it is fantastical and implausible. A bit like a dead person coming back to life.
And once you've gone beyond accounts being contemporaneous it make little difference whether an account appears 200 years after the event (as is the case for extant copies of the gospels) or 500 years. Also note that there is archeological from much, much earlier than Ovid (e.g. 300-400BC) depicting the story of Icarus.
Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.
So if someone says that it isn't a myth, it makes it not a myth. Laughable.
-
Spud,
Could that be because it was true?
Technically yes, but only in the sense that the Tooth Fairy could be true too. If you want to argue for angels though, then you have a huge task to define them, to explain their properties, to show how they couldn’t be mistaken for something else etc. Come to think of it, the Tooth Fairy might be easier to establish.
If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.
Or they might not. Or anything. When you introduce “angels” into the conversation (apparently with a straight face) then anything at all might be.
in clothes that gleamed like lightning - angels
Have you ever been in Ilford High St on a Saturday afternoon? It’s full of “clothes that gleam like lightning” – I used to think it was teenage girls in shell suits, but now I know they’re angels ::)
Does the Grand Canyon-size leap you’ve made from shiny clothing to “therefore an angel” not trouble you at all?
-
Two main points here: Luke says "the things that have been fulfilled among us indicating that the first written account was written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. This is different from myth, which develops over centuries.
Secondly, we cannot eliminate the risks in the modern sense of having recorded evidence of the miracles. But the accounts do satisfy criteria which we would apply to any historical account, so that the miracles can't be disproved. I guess then it comes down to whether one accepts the existence of God, from which the possibility of miracles follows.
-
Spud,
But the accounts do satisfy criteria which we would apply to any historical account...
No, they absolutely do not. Not even close. If you want to apply to these stories the tests of historicity you have an enormous task ahead of you first to establish even your initial premises, let alone to demonstrate that the events as written reliably happened.
Just out of interest by the way, if you really believe what you said how would you explain the fact that worldwide these stories aren't taught by professors and teachers in history lessons - do you suppose there was some sort of grand conspiracy of historians who met in secret one day and agreed that the tests of historicity were met but they were going to keep it all schtum nonetheless in their lecture halls and classrooms? What?
-
Could that be because it was true? If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.
Let's just concentrate on Mark, because in Mark's story, nothing supernatural happens. We can both agree that it describes events that could have happened. i.e. the women go to the tomb. Jesus' body is gone. A man there tells them that he rose from the dead. We all not agree on why Jesus' body was missing, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
I can think of a couple of reasons why Mark would write that the people who discovered the body missing were women:
1. he is describing events that actually happened.
2. he wants to make the narrative as plausible as possible.
In the latter case, he needs a reason for people to go to the tomb. He chooses preparing the body for burial as his reason and once he has done that, the people in question would have to be women because it would be implausible that it would be men doing that kind of work.
The criterion of embarrassment doesn't work because we don't know what the early Christians were embarrassed about. The only way we can tell is by seeing what they wrote about and assuming the what they wrote about are the things they are not embarrassed about. That includes women discovering the resurrection first.
There's also another point about the criterion of embarrassment. If you are fabricating a story, it adds credibility to put in some details that are embarrassing. People assume that, if you are making stuff up, you wouldn't put embarrassing details in, so to convince them you are not making it up, put embarrassing details in.
-
A double bluff kind of thing?
-
There's also another point about the criterion of embarrassment. If you are fabricating a story, it adds credibility to put in some details that are embarrassing. People assume that, if you are making stuff up, you wouldn't put embarrassing details in, so to convince them you are not making it up, put embarrassing details in.
This is true. But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that than that they would. Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.
-
This is true. But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that. Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.
How do you know that?
-
How do you know that?
I don't, I'm suggesting it: most people probably wouldn't be clever enough to double bluff over a number of different criteria.
-
But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that than that they would.
On what basis can you conclude that? Are you saying that these early Christians were incapable of thinking about indulging in a spot of scheming in support of their cause?
Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.
So they weren't very bright then: in which case it is surprising that you set so much store by what these not "clever enough" people allegedly reported.
You remind me of someone who, when out of their depth in stormy waters, decides that the best course of action is to seek out a concrete lifebelt.
-
Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.
How many of the gospels were primarily aimed at Jewish audiences Spud. If not aimed at Jewish audiences the notion that women could not give evidence in Jewish law is entirely irrelevant to the criterion of embarrassment.
-
Oh dear, oh dear.
How could Mark have added extra eyewitness detail? His gospel is significantly shorter than the other two.
I'm not sure if you mean "how could he have added it, since he wrote after the others" or "how could he have added it, since that would have made it longer (assuming he was third to write)". Although shorter, some sections are longer than the corresponding ones in Mat/Luke.
As we have discussed before, it is highly probable that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied him whilst adding extra detail (not from eye witnesses though).
Here's another example of why I disagree:
Mat. 15:1-4
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:1-13
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Notice the blue highlighted sections, and how the thought process is smooth in Matthew but interrupted in Mark. Which is secondary?
As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.
Because if I do you will just say, "well, fiction writers can make up detail too"!
-
Notice the blue highlighted sections, and how the thought process is smooth in Matthew but interrupted in Mark. Which is secondary?
Well the general thought in textual analysis of ancient texts is that the less smooth, more 'clunky' text is more likely to be earlier. This is on the basis that over time later authors and copyists will tend to edit out the clunkiness and create a more coherent narrative.
So as far as textual analysis is concerned your examples suggest that Mark is earlier than Matthew, as per standard thought and opinion.
-
Well the general thought in textual analysis of ancient texts is that the less smooth, more 'clunky' text is more likely to be earlier. This is on the basis that over time later authors and copyists will tend to edit out the clunkiness and create a more coherent narrative.
So as far as textual analysis is concerned your examples suggest that Mark is earlier than Matthew, as per standard thought and opinion.
The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out. Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.
-
The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out.
But we have no idea how the gospels were ultimately written down - and without doubt the version we have are many generation copies. So there are those that suggest that the author actually wrote the piece, others that he kind of dictated it to others who wrote it down. It is also completely unclear whether the original ever even existed - in other words a single version that was then copied as it was common to write several versions at the outset, which may have been different to each other. So the writing skills of the original author is pretty well irrelevant as a argument as we have no idea what the original looked like.
Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.
No-one knows who wrote the gospels - while there are traditions, they are just that - traditions and not based on any credible evidence. So to assert that the author of Matthew was a tax collector is unevidenced speculation.
Rather than make up stuff - why not actually base your arguments on evidence and textual analysis, which suggests that Mark came first (albeit in all cases we don't actually have extant versions of the text for at least a century after they were supposed to have been originally written).
-
The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out. Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.
That you are quibling over textual analysis which establishes which came first on one hand and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document shows that even where your argument encompasses history and the study of history, Your challenge is conflicted and contradictory.
Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.
-
That you are quibling over textual analysis which establishes which came first on one hand and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document shows that even where your argument encompasses history and the study of history, Your challenge is conflicted and contradictory.
Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.
You do realise that you have addressed this point to your co-religionist Spud.
And I would agree, his approach is entirely based on special pleading, circular arguments and belief rather than evidence. It is indeed conflicted and contradictory.
If one takes an even-handed approach based on evidence and historicity then the fantastical claims in the gospels crumble to dust. Whether the non-fantastical claims are true or not is neither here nor there as they amount to nothing more than the story of a religious preacher carrying out his work, which was as commonplace as mud in those days. Of course there is precious little evidence that any of those claims are actually true due to the complete paucity of corroborative evidence, whether narrative or archeological. Plus that the claims only appear in a form we can study hundreds of years later. But realistically that is of no great interest as in a broad historical (let alone a theological) sense it is largely irrelevant whether a 1stC preacher travelled to location X on day Y. These claims are totally unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable today and it is irrelevant whether he did, or he didn't beyond a vague interest in the diary commitments of a 1stC preacher. They tell us nothing about the fantastical claims any more than the notion that many of the London locations described in the Harry Potter books are demonstrably real might suggest that the fantastical claims in those books are therefore true.
-
Vlad,
…and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document…
Neither PD nor anyone else here has done that.
What has been said though is that the existence of old documents does not of itself make their contents true. To assess reliability various tests of historicity are applied, which is why gospel miracle stories aren’t taught in history lessons – such claims fail those tests.
Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.
Even if we allow for a moment your personal redefinition of the term “philosophical materialism” (by which presumably you actually mean physicalism) do you not think that approach is likely to give more reliable results than the epistemological fuck all-ism of religious “faith”?
If not, why not?
-
As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.
Someone who saw the young man who fled in the garden of Gethsemane. To quote "Who Moved the Stone? (https://www.gospeltruth.net/whomovedthestone.htm#13)" -
And if there is one thing that clinches and confirms the veracity of the narrative it is surely that curiously irrelevant incident of the young man whose cloak was snatched from him in the struggle and who fled naked into the night. Why should we be told anything about this man except for the weighty and sufficient reason that the thing happened? The retreating figure of this naked youth is clearly one of the ineffaceable impressions of a dramatic five minutes that remained engraven deeply in the memory of everyone present.
-
Someone who saw the young man who fled in the garden of Gethsemane. To quote "Who Moved the Stone? (https://www.gospeltruth.net/whomovedthestone.htm#13)" -
Spud
You really are incredibly gullible: assuming for now that a gathering took place in the garden of Gethsemane.
1. How do you know this aspect of the narrative is actually true.
2. Lots of authors add background details to their stories to add variety.
3. Even of this young man was there, so what? It makes no difference to a claim of dead people not staying dead.
-
Vlad,
Neither PD nor anyone else here has done that.
Of course he has, If one says you cannot rely on a document dated 200 years after the event then what have you left? If you imply that that is true and appeal to a document 500 years older than the event then you are being inconsistent,
-
Vlad,
Of course he has, If one says you cannot rely on a document dated 200 years after the event then what have you left? If you imply that that is true and appeal to a document 500 years older than the event then you are being inconsistent,
That’s not what you said though. What you said was: “…and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document…”.
No-one “dismisses history altogether” because the records are old. If people did that there’s be no history. What he (and others) actually says is that the greater the distance in time from the supposed event to its being written down, the greater the opportunities for mistakes (and worse) to enter the story. That’s why tests of historicity have to be applied to evaluate how reliable the records are likely to be.
Do you get it now?
-
This is true. But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that than that they would. Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.
Either way, the criterion of embarrassment is incoherent because
a) there are motives to put embarrassing details in
b) we have no way to tell what was embarrassing to the early Christians except by looking at their writings which are the very things you claim are embarrassing .
-
Because if I do you will just say, "well, fiction writers can make up detail too"!
No I won't. In all probability you'll come up with a passage and I'll ask you what makes you so sure it's eye witness detail and you won't have an answer to that.
-
Vlad,
No-one “dismisses history altogether” because the records are old.
Oh just for the most part, then.
-
Vlad,
Oh just for the most part, then.
Wrong again. Written accounts are not accepted as reliable when they fail the tests of historicity. No more, no less. You should know this by now, and you should know by now too that these tests aren't specific to your faith. They apply equally to any written accounts, as they must if there's to be a method not to accept everythng that's written at face value.
Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.
-
Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.
Indeed he does as I have never said and nor do I believe that historical evidence written some time after the event, or where the earliest extant version is from well after the event is of no value.
Rather I have said that a whole range of issues need to be taken into account when determining, from a historicity perspective, whether a document provides strong or weak evidence. The problem with the gospels isn't merely that we don't have extant versions until hundreds of years after the event. It is compounded by a range of factors, for example:
1. the likely number of copying events from the original to the extant version
2. the complete paucity of corroborating evidence from independent (and ideally non-partial) sources - being both narrative and/or also archeological
3. the bias and agenda of the likely authors - again linked to the lack of corroborative evidence ideally from people who are either neutral or oppositely biased.
4. that the extant gospel versions we have are the product of a selection process aimed at creating an orthodoxy of view from by believers
5. that they are unlikely to have been written for the purpose of recording historical event, rather they are theological documents.
6. that we have clear evidence from the extant version that we have of edits and interpolations aimed at fitting the narrative to the agenda - e.g. the end of Mark
7. that we have no idea who the authors actually were (beyond being believers writing with an agenda)
And that's before you add fantastical nature of many of the key claims, which are physiologically implausible.
So it isn't jus the age that is an issue, but all these other points to, which is why the gospels are not considered to be historical documents studied as history, but religious documents studied as theology.
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. Written accounts are not accepted as reliable when they fail the tests of historicity. No more, no less. You should know this by now, and you should know by now too that these tests aren't specific to your faith. They apply equally to any written accounts, as they must if there's to be a method not to accept everythng that's written at face value.
Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
-
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
Spot on.
And one further thing to add on 9 - many of the earliest extant fragments are just that, small fragments, so very difficult to gain a real understanding of the text and certainly not the overall narrative.
-
Jeremy,
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
Well, yes - but apart from all that though? ;)
Incidentally, somewhat depressingly when I googled "tests of historictiy" a bunch of religious sites came up that said things like, "As Dr William Lane Craig confirms, the Gospels pass the tests of historicity with flying colours" and they're the same tests!
It's bizarre.
-
But we have no idea how the gospels were ultimately written down - and without doubt the version we have are many generation copies. So there are those that suggest that the author actually wrote the piece, others that he kind of dictated it to others who wrote it down. It is also completely unclear whether the original ever even existed - in other words a single version that was then copied as it was common to write several versions at the outset, which may have been different to each other. So the writing skills of the original author is pretty well irrelevant as a argument as we have no idea what the original looked like.
No-one knows who wrote the gospels - while there are traditions, they are just that - traditions and not based on any credible evidence. So to assert that the author of Matthew was a tax collector is unevidenced speculation.
Rather than make up stuff - why not actually base your arguments on evidence and textual analysis, which suggests that Mark came first (albeit in all cases we don't actually have extant versions of the text for at least a century after they were supposed to have been originally written).
Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation earlier in time be expected to reproduce it more accurately? And the version of the conversation that is less similar to the original would have been written later on.
Might your theory depend on the conversation being fictitious?
In other words, how could a non-eyewitness author, writing later on, come up with a more logical reproduction of a conversation that actually took place?
-
Jeremy,
Well, yes - but apart from all that though? ;)
I hear talking about women was embarrassing, so that overrides all of the above.
Incidentally, somewhat depressingly when I googled "tests of historictiy" a bunch of religious sites came up that said things like, "As Dr William Lane Craig confirms, the Gospels pass the tests of historicity with flying colours" and they're the same tests!
It's bizarre.
I wouldn't trust WLC as far as I could throw him. He talks a good talk and he has a veneer of respectable scholarship, but it doesn't take much to debunk pretty much every argument he makes. I think he's what you might call a cargo cult scholar.
-
Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation earlier in time be expected to reproduce it more accurately? And the version of the conversation that is less similar to the original would have been written later on.
Might your theory depend on the conversation being fictitious?
In other words, how could a non-eyewitness author, writing later on, come up with a more logical reproduction of a conversation that actually took place?
So who was the eye witness who told the gospel authors about Jesus' trial before Pilate? Who was the eye witness to Jesus praying alone in the Garden of Gethsemene. If the women at the tomb never told anybody about what happened, as Mark states, how do we know what happened?
-
Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation ...
Let's just stop there shall we.
In the case of the gospel claims, who exactly were the eye witnesses upon whose testimony the claims therein are based. And even if we knew who these people were (we don't) do you really think they wrote down their testimony. That is exceptionally unlikely.
-
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
Have you applied this to Pliny or any other historical records?
-
Spot on.
.
Really? have you taken account of Jeremy's point number 8?
-
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
I know there is an argument that miracles don't happen part of which is that one can always invoke aliens or ''extremely improbable but totally natural things'' happening but ''Good evidence?''.
I would caution ''We don't usually if ever see them'' as good evidence because that might mean you are not describing an actual miracle, that flim flam preachers claim to conjur them regularly notwithstanding.
-
Really? have you taken account of Jeremy's point number 8?
Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.
-
Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.
You obviously haven't taken note of this because you are still suggesting that the problem only seems to apply to some documentation. This is because you are flip flopping between some general standard(eg Jeremy's standards gleaned from the internet include the use of photographic media) and ancient historical study methods as suits your case. As point number 8 of Jeremy's shows us , all ancient documents are affected. The thing is you do not seem to be applying that consistently. Why not therefore own up and say you don't believe it chiefly on other grounds? Jeremy's point 7 for instance. Here Jeremy says that miracles have all the evidence against them. Miracles don't happen. I could steer him to any number of what are known as christian cessessionists who would agree that you will never see a miracle because that age has passed. Jeremy though is using the present to describe the past and that doesn't sound much like history to me
What you seem to be doing also is undermining the work of all ancient Historians who work with this material on a daily basis.
-
Have you applied this to Pliny or any other historical records?
Let's apply it to Caesar's Gallic Wars shall we (since Christians sometimes claim there's more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar).
1. Yes
2. Julius Caesar was an eye witness to the events he was describing. Gallic Wars was written as propaganda though.
3. Yes
4. Not sure but a lot of the events of Caesar's life are attested to by other contemporary writers e.g. Cicero.
5. Gaul was clearly conquered by Rome. There is archaeological and documentary evidence that attests to this fact.
6. I don't know. In all likelihood there are some discrepancies.
7. No
8. The original is lost. We only have copies.
9. Not applicable - we don't have the original.
-
Let's apply it to Caesar's Gallic Wars shall we (since Christians sometimes claim there's more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar).
1. Yes
2. Julius Caesar was an eye witness to the events he was describing. Gallic Wars was written as propaganda though.
3. Yes
4. Not sure but a lot of the events of Caesar's life are attested to by other contemporary writers e.g. Cicero.
5. Gaul was clearly conquered by Rome. There is archaeological and documentary evidence that attests to this fact.
6. I don't know. In all likelihood there are some discrepancies.
7. No
8. The original is lost. We only have copies.
9. Not applicable - we don't have the original.
Gallic wars were fought....and there was an early christian community.
-
You obviously haven't taken note of this because you are still suggesting that the problem only seems to apply to some documentation.
Nope - it applies to all documentation. Some will be just as lacking as the gospels, others will be much stronger in the categories that Jeremy P outlines. So for example if we have a document describing a military campaign from the perspective of one side, we may have corroborative evidence from another source from that side, or better still from the other side. They may well disagree on details (and may be tainted by agenda and propaganda, just as the gospels are) but the combination of sources provides a thread of consistent narrative.
And further we may have archeological evidence - for example sites where the armies were based with all sorts of artefacts that confirms their presence and dating.
And so on, and so on.
-
What you seem to be doing also is undermining the work of all ancient Historians who work with this material on a daily basis.
On the contrary - Jeremy and I are supporting the work of ancient historians who are dealing with this kind of material on a daily basis and therefore spend a lot of their time determining the value of individual source material, prior to drawing conclusions about what it actually says. Unless you do that you will treat materials that fail the historicity tests as just as valuable as those that pass them. That would be incredibly poor scholarship, but something you want to advocate.
And there is a further point - many documents make all sorts of points and claims. The tests of historicity need to be applied in a sophisticated manner to details. So we may accept one aspects as being sound from a historicity point of view but reject another. Now I've never read the Gallic wars, but suppose it makes some broad claims about the Romans being in Gall and engaging in a campaign against the local populace. But elsewhere makes a very specific claim that Julius Caesar told his Generals that they would all be hugely rewarded if they were victorious and another claim that he always eat smoked fish on the eve of battle.
Now there might be substantial corroborative evidence for the first claim (narrative from other Roman or Gallic sources and archeological) so we might accept that element in historicity sense. There might be evidence to support the promotion of the Generals from other sources, so again might be accepted. But there may be none for the smoked fish - in which case this would be rejected. If might provide some nice colour and detail to the story but there is no evidence to support its veracity.
But you then need to broaden the objective of the study - the key point here would be about the overall Gallic campaign and the promotion of generals might be of major historical interest. However the food preferences of Caesar is pretty well irrelevant to the importance in a historical context, so whether we accept or reject it is fairly irrelevant.
The problem for christianity is that it is entirely based on claims akin to the eating fish - unsubstantiated and with hindsight unsubstantiatable.
-
Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.
It's a minor point though. If we found the original of Mark's Gospel (I'm assuming there is a way to verify that) and it could be dated to around 70CE give or take five years (as per the most popular dating), it really wouldn't help the Christian case very much at all. It would still be an anonymous document derived from unknown oral sources. You'd need to discover documentary evidence of its provenance to have any significant impact on its lack of historicity.
-
Gallic wars were fought....and there was an early christian community.
Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.
-
Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.
I agree on both counts.
Indeed pretty well the only non-christian corroborative evidence we have is neither contemporaneous (being from decades later, with extant version much later still) and largely just tells us that there were christian communities about at that point (which we already know). They tell us virtually nothing about Jesus' life and that which they do tell us is largely just a reiteration of what the christian communities believed (i.e. put to death by Pilot). There are some further elements that are clearly later christian interpolations - this is a further point to be added to the validity of documents, the possibility of later amendment with an agenda. We see this most obviously with Josephus.
-
Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.
The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy in terms of where or how and also applying the principle to other documentation.....This is what I take as consistency.
Or of course this is the point where you can depart from Historical method and say ''well this isn't my proposition in other words the bible is not an accurate account of Jesus life, I can say that but I don't need to justify it.''
To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?
Two more points. In your treatment of the Gallic wars you make a comment that other writers report the same things. Do you not seek confirmation from works that have the same problem as that you are trying to support?
Secondly, Are the Gospels and epistles not accounts of Jesus ministry and manifesto
rather than an account of his life?
-
The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy in terms of where or how and also applying the principle to other documentation.....This is what I take as consistency.
I don't have to demonstrate inaccuracy. I've applied the criteria for historicity to Mark's gospel and I think it demonstrates that Mark's gospel is not reliable. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that we can't use it to determine what happened in Jesus' life.
And, by the way, I did apply the principle to another document: The Gallic Wars. The results were entirely different.
To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?
Who knows. It's not incumbent on me to provide an alternative history just because I have demonstrated your primary evidential documents are not reliable.
Two more points. In your treatment of the Gallic wars you make a comment that other writers report the same things. Do you not seek confirmation from works that have the same problem as that you are trying to support?
Yep. But Cicero and Caesar were two different people. In fact, they were political enemies. They are independent sources and therefore if they say the same thing, it is more probable that what they say is true.
Secondly, Are the Gospels and epistles not accounts of Jesus ministry and manifesto
rather than an account of his life?
Yes they are which is a point against them as reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
-
I don't have to demonstrate inaccuracy. I've applied the criteria for historicity to Mark's gospel and I think it demonstrates that Mark's gospel is not reliable. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that we can't use it to determine what happened in Jesus' life.
And, by the way, I did apply the principle to another document: The Gallic Wars. The results were entirely different.
Who knows. It's not incumbent on me to provide an alternative history just because I have demonstrated your primary evidential documents are not reliable. Yep. But Cicero and Caesar were two different people. In fact, they were political enemies. They are independent sources and therefore if they say the same thing, it is more probable that what they say is true.
Yes they are which is a point against them as reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
If you are positively asserting inaccuracy then you have to say where and how they are inaccurate in other words, what is the proper history. What you have effectively ended up with is ''I don't know what happened but I know it didn't happen like that.
Secondly there is an explanatory gulf between your statement, ''it is probably inaccurate'' and ''there likely was a Jesus of history,'' the mainstream view of professional historians. (Clearly not the conclusion that is arrived by the situation where nothing about Jesus has historicity) .That gulf is of course filled by the answer to how and where the account is inaccurate.
What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious. Here I think that looks more due to a suspension of history and adoption of one's beliefs.
-
To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?
Sure there are no gaps in history, but there can be gaping gaps in our knowledge and understanding. So if we do not have reliable documentation to support a particular view on the history of a person we simply accept that we do not, with confidence, know the history of that person. What we do not do is simply make stuff up to fill the gaps. Nor do we simply accept unreliable evidence because we don't have anything more reliable.
-
What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious.
I don't think that is true at all, and indeed very few actual historians (rather than theologians or bible studies people) actually engage with the historicity of Jesus for the simple reason that you can't actually detach the history from the theology as the only evidence we have is from documents which are primarily theological rather than historical.
So I don't think that historians in any shape or form agree on the secular parts of Jesus' life and ministry. Of if they do it is to say that the evidence we have is very unreliable from a historical perspective and therefore we agree that we cannot say very much at all with confidence about Jesus' life at all beyond the likelihood that there probably was a historical person called Jesus. Indeed there is a train of thought that the theological Jesus was based on not one but several people and older traditions - a kind of cut and shut character that ticked all the right theological boxes.
-
I don't think that is true at all, and indeed very few actual historians (rather than theologians or bible studies people) actually engage with the historicity of Jesus for the simple reason that you can't actually detach the history from the theology as the only evidence we have is from documents which are primarily theological rather than historical.
I'm not sure this account of where genuine historic study has taken place is familiar. Engaging with the historicity of Jesus? What do you mean by that...and why aren't you giving me the alternative of Jesus as myth? So far what your a dancing around is coming out and declaring that mainstream historians think that Jesus is more likely a myth. I have to say that would make mainstream actual historians of people like Carrier. I'm not sure they fit that description but wouldn't say that because they are considered fringe theorists they wouldn't be capable of performing genuine history.
So I don't think that historians in any shape or form agree on the secular parts of Jesus' life and ministry.
or ecclesiastical history of any sort?Or if they do it is to say that the evidence we have is very unreliable from a historical perspective
example? and therefore we agree that we cannot say very much at all with confidence about Jesus' life at all beyond the likelihood that there probably was a historical person called Jesus
Common name, what is it then that prevents these people saying that Jesus is myth?. Indeed there is a train of thought that the theological Jesus was based on not one but several people and older traditions - a kind of cut and shut character that ticked all the right theological boxes.
Yes it's called Jesus as myth.
This all seems to lead to the same inversion of mainstream with fringe that you have already demonstrated.
Also the thesis you seem to present here is you dismissing the early Christians as people who obviously are a special case of making stuff up. And that theologians and biblical studies are not at all historically minded or indeed capable of Historical study.
Cut and shut might be a good description of the Jesus as myth formulations of which myths Jesus is made up of. A methodology, I move, that has put them on the fringe.
-
What do you mean by that...and why aren't you giving me the alternative of Jesus as myth?
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. Hence serious historians dismiss the gospels as providing credible historical evidence for the reasons Jeremy outlines indicating that the documents are exceptionally weak in term of historicity. However as absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence serious historians will not jump to fill that gap with further conjecture which has no more evidence for it.
-
or ecclesiastical history of any sort?
Of course historians study the history of the church, because there is an extremely rich evidence base on which to base those studies. And it is, of course, exceptionally interesting as a historical topic. But again historians study history, not theology although the latter may in itself be the subject of historical study. For example the nature of that theological view, how it may have changed and its impact on broader society. However a historian will be dispassionate and objective and should not engage in discussion as to whether the theological claims are actually true (although they may discuss whether people believed they were true).
-
Spud
You really are incredibly gullible: assuming for now that a gathering took place in the garden of Gethsemane.
1. How do you know this aspect of the narrative is actually true.
2. Lots of authors add background details to their stories to add variety.
3. Even of this young man was there, so what? It makes no difference to a claim of dead people not staying dead.
What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.
-
What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.
Firstly we don't know who wrote any of the gospels - their attribution is merely a 2ndC tradition. Secondly John is considered to have been written around 100AD and therefore the author of John would have had to have been exceptionally old to have been around in 30AD as an adult.
The notion that this kind of narrative detail is reliable is frankly laughable. The early history of christianity is one where early christians considered Jesus to return in their lifetime so there was no need to write things down. Only when it because apparent that this wasn't going to happen (and with those of an age to have been around at the time dying) plus the early christian communities becoming scattered did it become important to write the narratives. These will have been based on earlier oral tradition - but this oral tradition isn't one of historical narrative detail, but one of sayings and stories passed on as self contained units. There would have been no continuous narrative as we see in the gospels.
So most likely the gospel writers took these fragmented sayings and created a narrative around them to generate a more compelling document. It is important to note that the gospel writers would have been writing in the time and place where these kind of 'biographies' were all the rage (see Plutarch) so creating the gospels in this fashion would have been very 'a la mode' and most likely to be attractive to their intended audiences.
-
Did I say it was a conspiracy. It could simply be that Mark wrote the women in and then the other writers copied him, embellishing the story as they saw fit.
Thanks for this, I've actually got what you're saying now. It's a myth rather than a deliberate deception, right?
Okay, my reply is that myths develop much later, and this was written within the lifetime of the witnesses. Also Matthew wrote first, so the angel evolved into a young man later.
-
What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.
On what basis is this example being a lie or mistake "less probable" that it being true? I'd be interested to know on what basis you have been able to assess these two risks as being so unlikely that they can be dismissed. Even if the story that John ran faster than Peter was indeed true, and there is no way to verify that is true, it would be a trivial matter.
I'd hope your weren't gullible to enough to suppose that if a relatively trivial aspect in the NT such as this one were true, though you could never actually verify this, that the implication is that the less trivial elements in the NT stories (like miracle claims) might also be true.
-
Of course historians study the history of the church, because there is an extremely rich evidence base on which to base those studies. And it is, of course, exceptionally interesting as a historical topic.
Then they will be aware of the patristic literature available But again historians study history, not theology although the latter may in itself be the subject of historical study.
Unfortunately or fortunately as is probably clear from the volume of patristic literature, things like the baptism and crucifixion and the resurrection are presented by the Early christians as things which actually happened, rather than myth.
If you are interested then Bettenson published by OUP is your man. He has translated several key documents in two volumes, the early church fathers and the later church fathers.
-
Let's just stop there shall we.
In the case of the gospel claims, who exactly were the eye witnesses upon whose testimony the claims therein are based. And even if we knew who these people were (we don't) do you really think they wrote down their testimony. That is exceptionally unlikely.
The disciples heard the conversation. My point is that since Matthew clearly gives a more accurate account of it, and since it is fairly obvious that there was copying, it's likely that Mark was the copier. It is more likely to have been remembered in the form Matthew gives it.
-
On what basis is this example being a lie or mistake "less probable" that it being true?
It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.
-
Vlad,
The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy…
If you are positively asserting inaccuracy…
Just to put you straight again, this is flat wrong thinking. It’s not that people say “the gospels are definitely wrong”; rather they people say, “the gospels fail the tests historians apply to determine whether or not these records should be treated as reliable”. It’s the same blind spot you have about the burden of proof – insufficient reasons to accept something as true isn’t the same as saying that thing is necessarily not true.
Your “holy” texts fail the tests of historicity. That’s why they’re not taught as factual in history lessons (something that should trouble a Bible literalist like you by the way). Whether nonetheless they happen to be true though is a different matter entirely.
-
It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.
Why is it unlikely - people do have imaginations you know.
-
Spud,
It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.
Do you not know that literary fiction is full of "unlikely details"?
-
Unfortunately or fortunately as is probably clear from the volume of patristic literature, things like the baptism and crucifixion and the resurrection are presented by the Early christians as things which actually happened, rather than myth.
The problem there is, of course, that while baptisms and crucifixions (e.g. known human activities) were no doubt regular events in that time/place a claimed resurrection (e.g. a miracle) is clearly a different category of event.
-
The problem there is, of course, that while baptisms and crucifixions (e.g. known human activities) were no doubt regular events in that time/place a claimed resurrection (e.g. a miracle) is clearly a different category of event.
Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.
Do you categorise it differently?
-
Vlad,
Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.
Do you categorise it differently?
Yes. Either it happened or it didn't; it's either a historical event or it isn't. Also calling it 'theological" doesn't change that.
-
Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.
Do you categorise it differently?
But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive: there are methods suited to investigating the former, such as baptism ceremonies or executions, and to date no methods suited to investigating the latter, such as claims of miracles.
You are conflating history and theology.
-
But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive: there are methods suited to investigating the former, such as baptism ceremonies or executions, and to date no methods suited to investigating the latter, such as claims of miracles.
You are conflating history and theology.
Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.
The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.
-
But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive:
Explain how
.
-
Explain how
.
Because one has methods that are suited to investigation, such as events involving human behaviour (e.g. baptisms or executions, which you mentioned earlier), and the other doesn't (e.g. claimed miracles involving walking on water or dead people not staying dead).
Of course you already know this, since you've been told this often enough before now.
-
Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.
What is a 'spiritual event' and how do you detect one of these events?
The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.
And all three of the aspects you mention here can be investigated using naturalistic methods of enquiry: so, let us consider that there is a category of things that are suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry. However, the NT supernatural miracle claims, such as dead people not staying dead and Jesus walking on water, are not suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry, since if they were then you could advise on the correct methodology so as to verify miracles: and you can't, which implies that miracle claims are in a different category as regards methods of investigation.
To show I'm wrong then all you need do now is show how naturalistic methods of enquiry can include the investigation of miracles.
-
Vlad,
Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.
The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.
Even though you’re well on your way to Australia here you should stop digging anyway. Really, you should.
Aesop’s Hare & the Tortoise fable is “true” on various allegorical, psychological, ethical, whatever levels too but that doesn’t mean that there was an actual hare and tortoise racing each other. You on the other hand claim a resurrection that was not only an allegory from which you happen to derive various meanings, but also that it actually happened as a material event – a man-god was (according to you) alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again. This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place, then absent, then in place again.
Just slapping labels on the story like “theological” etc doesn’t change that one jot. Either you think the physical occurrence happened or you don’t, no matter what other meaning the story has for you.
Try to grasp this.
-
Why is it unlikely - people do have imaginations you know.
Why tell us who got to the tomb first but not the colour of Peter's hair, or more of that kind of stuff which you usually find in fiction? Perhaps that is a distinguishing hallmark of someone's recollection of an event? Or perhaps it isn't.
-
Why tell us who got to the tomb first but not the colour of Peter's hair, or more of that kind of stuff which you usually find in fiction? Perhaps that is a distinguishing hallmark of someone's recollection of an event? Or perhaps it isn't.
Spud
Unless you have a hotline to the unknown author(s) of these stories then their motivation for including, or indeed excluding, trivial details isn't something you can really opine on.
Even if you accept what you say the story says, being as it is a trivial claim anyway, that person A got to the tomb before person B, that doesn't allow you to presume that all the other claims in the NT are therefore also true - especially so when these other claims are fantastical.
Face it, Spud: aside from aspects such as place names and certain people, the rest of the NT details involving Jesus and his followers are indistinguishable from fiction.
-
If you are positively asserting inaccuracy
I'm not doing that though. I'm positively asserting that the evidence you think you have is unreliable.
then you have to say where and how they are inaccurate in other words, what is the proper history. What you have effectively ended up with is ''I don't know what happened but I know it didn't happen like that.
No, you are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm saying "I don't know what happened, and neither do you". If you say "my clock tells me it is two o'clock in the afternoon and I say "but the hands haven't moved for at least four hours" I don't have to propose an alternative time for us to agree your clock has stopped.
What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious. Here I think that looks more due to a suspension of history and adoption of one's beliefs.
I think historians are in agreement about the secular part of Jesus' ministry: they agree there's no good evidence that it was as the gospels say. My personal opinion, based on what evidence there is, is that Christianity had a founder and it is probable that the Jesus of the gospel stories is that founder, but pretty much everything else is speculation.
-
Vlad,
Even though you’re well on your way to Australia here you should stop digging anyway. Really, you should.
This is good sign that you are so unsure of your argument. You would propbably have got right into it if you had been.
Water muddying.
Aesop’s Hare & the Tortoise fable is “true” on various allegorical, psychological, ethical, whatever levels too but that doesn’t mean that there was an actual hare and tortoise racing each other. You on the other hand claim a resurrection that was not only an allegory from which you happen to derive various meanings,
We weren't discussing allegory we were discussing theology. Therefore category confusion and straw man – a man-god was (according to you) alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again. This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place, then absent, then in place again.
To give an allegory Hillside, I can imagine a student of William Harvey's asking if there could ever be a transplantation of the heart being told ''This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place,etc''
-
Because one has methods that are suited to investigation, such as events involving human behaviour (e.g. baptisms or executions, which you mentioned earlier), and the other doesn't (e.g. claimed miracles involving walking on water or dead people not staying dead).
That does not answer how I am confusing them or how both are mutually exclusive. There is no identifiable effort to confuse particularly as I used both/and.
This post is merely a bit of an advertisement for your argument from disbelief.
Theology does encompass areas of psychology and anthropology.
Any way since you have brought it now for The rebuttal of Dead people cannot become alive again.
1: Argument from materialism: Life is a phenomenon dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Resurrection would be even less possible if ''Life'' was an entity of it's own as in vitalism or the soul.
2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such
technology.
3: Argument from improbable event. Resurrection could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.
4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.
5: Argument from simulated universe theory (AKA the death knell of many an atheist argument), The creator could resurrect any of the simulants.
-
What is a 'spiritual event' and how do you detect one of these events?
In the event of holy matrimony in Christian terms it is a declaration between two people before God'' . How do you detect whether this is happening? Repenting and having faith in Jesus Christ. In terms of the spirituality of man as held by some secular humanists, I suppose the feeling that these are two persons who are so in love they are just meant for each other. Method of detection, Intuition.
And all three of the aspects you mention here can be investigated using naturalistic methods of enquiry: so, let us consider that there is a category of things that are suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry. However, the NT supernatural miracle claims, such as dead people not staying dead and Jesus walking on water, are not suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry
That isn't so. If it happened it would be visually discerned, detectable in the infra red, The feet of the pedestrian in question could be examined for moisture subsequently. Etc. Similar observations could be made in the case of a resurrection. Vis St Thomas's experience.
You are letting your unbelief cloud the obvious.
-
I'm not doing that though. I'm positively asserting that the evidence you think you have is unreliable.
No, you are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm saying "I don't know what happened, and neither do you". If you say "my clock tells me it is two o'clock in the afternoon and I say "but the hands haven't moved for at least four hours" I don't have to propose an alternative time for us to agree your clock has stopped.
I know I wasn't there but We are ''not there for the vast majority of things''. Given that, having encountered Christ I am able to work backwards. If Jesus had not been resurrected there could be no encounter.
I think historians are in agreement about the secular part of Jesus' ministry: they agree there's no good evidence that it was as the gospels say. My personal opinion, based on what evidence there is, is that Christianity had a founder and it is probable that the Jesus of the gospel stories is that founder, but pretty much everything else is speculation.
No agreement on the manifesto or divine acts of Jesus is imho down to beliefs rather than history. Historically speaking you are right, Although I probably think we are closer to history with the epistles and what CS Lewis, Professionally an Oxford Academic critic of literature , calls ''reportage'' in the Gospels and Acts. I also think you do have a duty to provide the alternative.......or maybe it's OK if I do and examine it on your behalf.
-
In the event of holy matrimony in Christian terms it is a declaration between two people before God'' . How do you detect whether this is happening? Repenting and having faith in Jesus Christ. In terms of the spirituality of man as held by some secular humanists, I suppose the feeling that these are two persons who are so in love they are just meant for each other. Method of detection, Intuition.
So, feeling 'spiritual' is just like any other feeling, be it happy, sad, worried, carefree or a feeling of 'faith' in religious traditions: that someone has a 'faith' feeling that relates to their idea of 'God' doesn't imply that this 'God' is anything other than a feeling they have.
That isn't so. If it happened it would be visually discerned, detectable in the infra red, The feet of the pedestrian in question could be examined for moisture subsequently. Etc. Similar observations could be made in the case of a resurrection. Vis St Thomas's experience.
Aside from the obvious risks involving human artifice, which you guys seem programmed to avoid acknowledging, and since you mention infra red and moisture detection in relation to the miracle claims I mentioned, you'll need to firm up these ideas into some sort of methodology. Moreover, since both infra red radiation (though not understood back in antiquity) and moisture would be detected using naturalistic methods I'm curious to know how these somehow imply the non naturalistic. I suspect you're clutching at straws again.
You are letting your unbelief cloud the obvious.
If something is so obvious why then I'm wondering why you can't you explain it clearly and concisely without tripping yourself up.
-
So, feeling 'spiritual' is just like any other feeling, be it happy, sad, worried, carefree or a feeling of 'faith' in religious traditions: that someone has a 'faith' feeling that relates to their idea of 'God' doesn't imply that this 'God' is anything other than a feeling they have.
No, it is the detection of the divine brought about by, in the case of Christianity, that involves revelation and response. Humanist spirituality is more feeling and intuition often unexamined. The two are different obviously. Once again you are being blinded by what you are prepared to believe and not believe.Aside from the obvious risks involving human artifice, which you guys seem programmed to avoid acknowledging
How programmed? I am certainly prepared to debate you over thatI do not acknowledge that and that can only come from your emotions at not being immediately concurred with. What I am against is automatically assuming human artifice as I believe you are doing, and since you mention infra red and moisture detection in relation to the miracle claims I mentioned, you'll need to firm up these ideas into some sort of methodology. Moreover, since both infra red radiation (though not understood back in antiquity) and moisture would be detected using naturalistic methods I'm curious to know how these somehow imply the non naturalistic. I suspect you're clutching at straws again.
I'm afraid I need notice to deal with cases of invincible ignorance but here goes... Assuming somebody did walk on water there are several naturalistic elements. 1) The someone 2) The observer and any equipment carried 3) The water 4) walking. Do you see now? You are starting with the assumption that there are no natural elements here which is just...not so. I suspect this boils to starting off with ''these things never happen...''
If something is so obvious why then I'm wondering why you can't you explain it clearly and concisely without tripping yourself up.
Hopefully this has now been explained to you clearly and concisely.
-
Given that, having encountered Christ...
Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.
In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.
-
Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.
In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.
Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?
Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.
-
Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?
Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
Once again Vlad fails to grasp the burden of proof. ::)
It's not impossible that you are right but you have provided nothing whatsoever in the way of reasons why we should believe it and, as I said, often mutually exclusive, fantastical claims are ten a penny.
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?
The problem is that you can't give any reason at all why we should take it seriously (as a literal encounter with somebody who - if they existed at all - died 2000 years ago).
Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.
It's simply the application of a rational approach to such claims. Once again: burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)).
-
No, it is the detection of the divine brought about by, in the case of Christianity, that involves revelation and response. Humanist spirituality is more feeling and intuition often unexamined. The two are different obviously. Once again you are being blinded by what you are prepared to believe and not believe.
Leaving aside your use of reification, since the "two are obviously different" they are in different categories so that each will require methods of investigation that are suited - so, what methods are suited to "the detection of the divine"?
How programmed? I am certainly prepared to debate you over thatI do not acknowledge that and that can only come from your emotions at not being immediately concurred with. What I am against is automatically assuming human artifice as I believe you are doing
No I'm not: I'm simply asking, yet again, what steps you guys have taken to exclude the risks of human artifice but it seems that you theistic types would prefer to avoid that issue at all costs.
I'm afraid I need notice to deal with cases of invincible ignorance but here goes... Assuming somebody did walk on water there are several naturalistic elements. 1) The someone 2) The observer and any equipment carried 3) The water 4) walking. Do you see now? You are starting with the assumption that there are no natural elements here which is just...not so. I suspect this boils to starting off with ''these things never happen...'' Hopefully this has now been explained to you clearly and concisely.
All I see is your personal incredulity, Vlad: people can't naturally walk on water without aids, so how have you excluded the risk that the walking on water story is fictitious propaganda? Note also that I'm not claiming that it is fictitious propaganda, and it isn't my claim anyway, I'm just curious as regards how you addressed the risk that it might be.
-
I also think you do have a duty to provide the alternative.......or maybe it's OK if I do and examine it on your behalf.
Nonsense - indeed the duty is not to propose an alternative unless that alternative is backed up by strong (or at least stronger) evidence than the original.
So the scholarly approach is firstly to assess the strength of the evidence for the original claim (in this case that the gospels provide credible historical evidence). In this case the gospels fail the tests of historicity and therefore the conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to use the gospels as historical source materials. We might then ask the question - is there evidence about the life of Jesus, separate to the gospels that would allow us to propose an alternative in a historical context. The answer to that question is, no and therefore we should not propose an alternative and merely conclude that there is insufficient credible historical evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about Jesus' life from a historical perspective, beyond very, very scant assertions (see below).
We are left with the scholarly conclusion that from the evidence:
1. There probably was a person called Jesus
2. That he was likely to have been baptised
3. He was was likely to have been executed
All these are based on the potential independent sources of Josephus and Tacitus - there are no other claims in the gospels about Jesus' life that have any corroborative evidence whatsoever, either independent narrative or archeological. And don't forget that Josephus and Tacitus are largely talking about the presence of christians and the mention of Jesus is in that context. So it is completely unclear whether these sections are genuinely independent or are merely borrowing from the earliest gospels which would have been floating about at the same time. So while claims 1-3 above have slightly more credibility than everything else in the gospels about Jesus' life they are still exceptionally weak from a historical perspective based on the tests of historicity.
-
Once again Vlad fails to grasp the burden of proof. ::) Yes I do a positive assertion carries a burden of proof. So if you say it probably didn't happen you need to justify that.
It's not impossible that you are right but you have provided nothing whatsoever in the way of reasons why we should believe it and, as I said, often mutually exclusive, fantastical claims are ten a penny.
The problem is that you can't give any reason at all why we should take it seriously (as a literal encounter with somebody who - if they existed at all - died 2000 years ago).
It's simply the application of a rational approach to such claims. Once again: burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)).
I do not recognise the status quo you and your colleagues are proposing. I am not denying the burden of proof I have.
I cannot prove it and have said so. You have conveniently ignored it.
-
Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.
In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.
Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?
Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.
My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.
-
Nonsense - indeed the duty is not to propose an alternative unless that alternative is backed up by strong (or at least stronger) evidence than the original. Wrong if you even have a scintilla of a preference for an alternative you need to declare it. Otherwise you have no reason to claim there is an alternative.
So the scholarly approach is firstly to assess the strength of the evidence for the original claim (in this case that the gospels provide credible historical evidence). In this case the gospels fail the tests of historicity and therefore the conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to use the gospels as historical source materials. We might then ask the question - is there evidence about the life of Jesus, separate to the gospels that would allow us to propose an alternative in a historical context. The answer to that question is, no and therefore we should not propose an alternative and merely conclude that there is insufficient credible historical evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about Jesus' life from a historical perspective, beyond very, very scant assertions (see below).
We are left with the scholarly conclusion that from the evidence:
1. There probably was a person called Jesus
2. That he was likely to have been baptised
3. He was was likely to have been executed
All these are based on the potential independent sources of Josephus and Tacitus - there are no other claims in the gospels about Jesus' life that have any corroborative evidence whatsoever, either independent narrative or archeological. And don't forget that Josephus and Tacitus are largely talking about the presence of christians and the mention of Jesus is in that context. So it is completely unclear whether these sections are genuinely independent or are merely borrowing from the earliest gospels which would have been floating about at the same time. So while claims 1-3 above have slightly more credibility than everything else in the gospels about Jesus' life they are still exceptionally weak from a historical perspective based on the tests of historicity.
So are people who concur with the three events ''Fringe'' or ''Mainstream''?
-
I do not recognise the status quo you and your colleagues are proposing. I am not denying the burden of proof I have.
I cannot prove it and have said so. You have conveniently ignored it.
The point is that you haven't just failed to prove it, you have provided nothing in the way of evidence or reasoning, so your claim is in exactly the same category as every other (often contradictory) religious claim, as well as claims about alien abductions, ghosts, vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster.
-
My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.
Except it isn't reasoning, is it? It's all about how you felt and what you believed.
-
Vlad,
This is good sign that you are so unsure of your argument. You would propbably have got right into it if you had been.
You made and then repeated your burden of proof mistake. I advised you to stop digging. That was good advice – you should have taken it.
We weren't discussing allegory we were discussing theology. Therefore category confusion and straw man
No, you were arguing (ok, asserting rather) that there are different types of truths about the event being a physical occurrence. I explained to you that the same is true of other narratives (like Aesop's fables), but that doesn’t help you one jot to support the claim that a literal resurrection occurred.
To give an allegory Hillside, I can imagine a student of William Harvey's asking if there could ever be a transplantation of the heart being told ''This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place,etc''
The analogy fails: in your case you’re asserting that such a thing happened before technologies were available that would have enabled it. You’re conflating a miracle narrative with a material one - a basic category error.
-
Leaving aside your use of reification, since the "two are obviously different" they are in different categories so that each will require methods of investigation that are suited - so, what methods are suited to "the detection of the divine"?
I've already said. In christianity, revelation and appropriate response
No I'm not: I'm simply asking, yet again, what steps you guys have taken to exclude the risks of human artifice but it seems that you theistic types would prefer to avoid that issue at all costs. Not true, the reasons not to accept Human artifice based on History and other arguments have been outlined to you. May I remind you I have put some of them them in bold already on this thread.
All I see is your personal incredulity, Vlad: people can't naturally walk on water without aids, so how have you excluded the risk that the walking on water story is fictitious propaganda? Note also that I'm not claiming that it is fictitious propaganda, and it isn't my claim anyway, I'm just curious as regards how you addressed the risk that it might be.
Since belief in aquatic pedestrianism doesn't feature as part of salvation, I'm obviously not concerned as you seem to be about it. Resurrection i'll give you.
My view on that is outlined in bold earlier on and on this thread.
-
Vlad,
The analogy fails: in your case you’re asserting that such a thing happened before technologies were available that would have enabled it. You’re conflating a miracle narrative with a material one - a basic category error.
You are talking about technologies for humans to do it. But what about advanced Aliens, Universe simulators or God? There is nothing logically that dictates they did not have the technology earth date whatever.
Also a resurrection has material elements so your argument is a non starter.
-
Except it isn't reasoning, is it? It's all about how you felt and what you believed.
There is some consideration of what we would agree are ideas. That, in my book, is reasoning.
-
Vlad,
…Any way since you have brought it now for The rebuttal of Dead people cannot become alive again.
1: Argument from materialism: Life is a phenomenon dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Resurrection would be even less possible if ''Life'' was an entity of it's own as in vitalism or the soul.
2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such
technology.
3: Argument from improbable event. Resurrection could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.
4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.
5: Argument from simulated universe theory (AKA the death knell of many an atheist argument), The creator could resurrect any of the simulants.
First, the rebuttal of leprechauns cannot leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
1: Argument from materialism: Rainbows and pots of gold are phenomena dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Gold at the ends of rainbows would be even less possible if gold and rainbows were was entities of their own.
2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such technology.
3: Argument from improbable event. Gold at the ends or rainbows could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.
4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.
5: Argument from simulated universe theory. Colin the grand Pooh-Bah of the leprechauns could magic the gold to be there.
Anything wrong with all that?
Second, your “arguments” here are just another repetition of your burden of proof mistake (I told you you should have taken my advice on this). They try to address the claim “resurrection impossible”. As you keep being told though, that’s not the claim – rather that claim is that the gospels’ narratives about the supposed resurrection cannot be treated as reliable. If you have any arguments to address that different point then make them, but for now all you’re doing is tilting at a straw man of your own making.
-
Vlad,
You are talking about technologies for humans to do it. But what about advanced Aliens, Universe simulators...
What about them? All possible material explanations, as they would be for any other supposed miracle claim.
... or God?
That's your cheat there. You've just conflated a material possibility with a non-material one as if they were the same category. Basic fail - you need to demonstrate first a non-material reality for your "god" to occupy.
There is nothing logically that dictates they did not have the technology earth date whatever.
Leaving aside you aliens/god category error, no-one says otherwise. The argument is about the reliability of the accounts, not the impossibility of the event remember?
Also a resurrection has material elements so your argument is a non starter.
That's backwards. It's because the (supposed) resurrection has "material elements" that the argument applies - the accounts cannot be treated as reliable unless they find away to address the problem this gives them. Try to grasp this.
-
Vlad,
Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
Where is your evidence that leprechauns probably don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?
According to you, in part at least yes: “Also a resurrection has material elements…” (Reply 276). You also I think claim a Jesus who “suffered for our sins”. “Suffering” would presumably be a physical phenomenon no?
Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.
My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.
Where’s the reasoning? You’re describing your feelings here – not presenting reasoning (premises, connecting logic, conclusions etc). “God is real because it feels that way to me” is epistemically no more valid than, “leprechauns are true because they feel real to me”.
-
Vlad,
Where is your evidence that leprechauns probably don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?
According to you, in part at least yes: “Also a resurrection has material elements…” (Reply 276). You also I think claim a Jesus who “suffered for our sins”. “Suffering” would presumably be a physical phenomenon no?
Non sequitur to the context which was my encounter with God.
-
Where’s the reasoning? You’re describing your feelings here – not presenting reasoning (premises, connecting logic, conclusions etc). “God is real because it feels that way to me” is epistemically no more valid than, “leprechauns are true because they feel real to me”.
Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.
-
Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.
Why not? I saw feelings and ideas but where was the reasoning bit?
-
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.
Thanks for telling us about your believes Vlad - how lovely.
Now can you explain how beliefs have any relevance to whether an event actually happened or not - in other words history.
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur to the context which was my encounter with God.
(Yet again) that’s not what non sequitur means, and worse you’ve just repeated your basic reification error. You can’t a just assume your premise (that there is a “god” a priori even to be “encountered”) when the discussion is about the epistemic value of that premise.
Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.
As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is, “my subjective responses give me my objective truths too” which as a matter for you (albeit that some of us set the evidence bar a lot higher than that) but it gives nothing to the rest of us that would make us think you’re right about that.
If I just assert that I’ve encountered leprechauns (and maybe too that I found the experience “numinous”) would you therefore accept as fact my claim “leprechauns”?
Why not?
Now can you see your problem here?
-
Vlad,
(Yet again) that’s not what non sequitur means, and worse you’ve just repeated your basic reification error. You can’t a just assume your premise (that there is a “god” a priori even to be “encountered”) when the discussion is about the epistemic value of that premise.
As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is, “my subjective responses give me my objective truths too” which as a matter for you (albeit that some of us set the evidence bar a lot higher than that) but it gives nothing to the rest of us that would make us think you’re right about that.
If I just assert that I’ve encountered leprechauns (and maybe too that I found the experience “numinous”) would you therefore accept as fact my claim “leprechauns”?
Since you've effectively being ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a give away. Also I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else
My last visit to the erse-twhile Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.
Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there own.
-
As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is...........
So we've gone from no reason to the only reason.........Some progress I suppose.
I outline the intellectual ideas which are handled (reasoning) but I also wanted to remind everybody that christianity is not merely intellectual assent, encounter and response comes into it and if as it seems God has opened himself to all that must include the least intellectually able....cue insult.
-
Vlad,
Since you've effectively being ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a give away. Also I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else
My last visit to the erse-twhile Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.
Why on earth have you returned to the same mistake you’ve been corrected on so many times already? Yet again…
…leprechauns are immaterial, but are able to flit in and out of materiality at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”.
You claim an immaterial god, also able at will to flit in and out of materiality. There’s even a word for this supposed phenomenon – “theophany”. According to texts you assert to be “holy”, your god appeared in physical form on numerous occasions – as a burning bush, as men, as “angels” even.
In short, the two claims are epistemically the same even though the characteristics differ. Do you get it now?
Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there own.
And your justification for this baseless claim would be what? If you find your belief that you “encountered god” to be “numinous”, why shouldn’t I find that my beliefs in encounters with leprechauns numinous too? Finding experiences numinous is after all just our respective subjective responses to something.
So we've gone from no reason to the only reason.........Some progress I suppose.
Try reading what I actually said. You said you’d set out your “reasoning”, and then provided no reasoning at all. What you did instead was to list some emotional responses to a belief, so the only reasoning I could infer (but that you hadn’t set out out all) was that you’d just jumped from the subjective to the objective without troubling with any connecting logic or argument.
I outline the intellectual ideas which are handled (reasoning)…
No you didn’t. I saw the opinions – where was the reasoning though?
…but I also wanted to remind everybody that christianity is not merely intellectual assent, encounter and response comes into it and if as it seems God has opened himself to all that must include the least intellectually able....cue insult.
No, cue rebuttal – again this is a basic reification fallacy. You’ve just jumped straight to “god” being real as your premise without troubling to establish it. “Because god is real I know met him” fails ab initio with the “because” (and you do the same thing sometimes with “since” too).
See whether you can work out for yourself why you’ve gone wrong again here.
-
Since you've effectively being (the word you want is "been") ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a giveaway. Also, I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there (the word you want here is "their" accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else
My last visit to the erse-twhile ((erstwhile) is one word! Unhyphenated!) Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking (Two H's - Hitchhiking) and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.
Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there (their) own.
Your murder of the spelling of the English Language (and I am minorly dyslexic, but I CAN and DO use a dictionary) is an annoyance second only to your attachment to the contention that the early history of Christianity is factual.
At least I am willing to admit that my religion is based upon faith and not fact.
Owlswing
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
)O(
-
Hi Owls,
Your murder of the spelling of the English Language (and I am minorly dyslexic, but I CAN and DO use a dictionary) is an annoyance second only to your attachment to the contention that the early history of Christianity is factual.
At least I am willing to admit that my religion is based upon faith and not fact.
Vlad has poor literacy – spelling, grammar, ability to construct coherent sentences etc are all weak. I generally don’t comment on it though because I think it’s unfair to do so. If I can work out what I think he’s trying to say then I do my best to respond to that.
That said, I find it hard to see how someone who claims to have read around his subject hasn’t learnt from his reading what clear writing should be.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
As you know I don’t share your beliefs, but that seems rather lovely to me.
-
Vlad,
…leprechauns are immaterial, but are able to flit in and out of materiality at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”.
Ah, Leprochology.
What is your feeling about the school of leprochology which would say Leprechauns are material but flit in and out of immaterial.
Have you encountered a leprechaun? Or is what you have just intellectual assent.
A localised supernatural or natural being bestowed supernatural abilities doesn’t possibly fit into what Lewis describes as the numinous.
As for theophany, that pertains to gods. The clue is in the “Theo”
-
Vlad,
Ah, Leprochology.
What is your feeling about the school of leprochology which would say Leprechauns are material but flit in and out of immaterial.
The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.
Have you encountered a leprechaun? Or is what you have just intellectual assent.
Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had.
A localised supernatural or natural being bestowed supernatural abilities doesn’t possibly fit into what Lewis describes as the numinous.
Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you.
As for theophany, that pertains to gods. The clue is in the “Theo”
Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.
Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?
-
Vlad,
The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.
Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had.
Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you.
Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.
Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?
Hillside........Why Leprechauns?
-
Vlad,
Hillside........Why Leprechauns?
Why god?
-
Vlad,
The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.
Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had.
Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you.
Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.
Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?
Given what Leprechauns are Hillside outside of your equation of their nature with the divine. Leprechauns inspire neither spiritual or religious awe them being wee Irishmen.
The only wonder in fact they inspire is wondering why you keep referring to them. So far we’ve had horses laugh on your part..... and you haven’t offered any alternative to that conclusion.
Top of the morning to ya.
-
Vlad,
Given what Leprechauns are Hillside outside of your equation of their nature with the divine. Leprechauns inspire neither spiritual or religious awe them being wee Irishmen.
What’s the relevance, and how do you know that in any case? I could just as easily use “leprechaunal” rather than “spiritual” or “religious", and how do you know that I’m not in awe of leprechauns (what with believing I’ve “encountered" them and all)?
The only wonder in fact they inspire is wondering why you keep referring to them.
What relevance do you think wonder has to epistemic truth?
So far we’ve had horses laugh on your part..... and you haven’t offered any alternative to that conclusion.
Top of the morning to ya.
Lying about this again doesn’t help you. I’ve explained to you often in the past exactly why the analogy isn’t the horse’s laugh fallacy at all (because it's actually a reductio ad absurdum). As you’ve never managed (or even tried) to rebut that, it stands.
-
Vlad,
Just to correct you once again on this point, the “horse laugh” fallacy (or the appeal to ridicule) entails the deliberate trivialisation of an argument with an unflattering comparison. If, say, you said, “I believe in God” and I replied with, “well I believe in leprechauns then” to make your belief look foolish that would be the horse laugh fallacy.
I have never done this.
The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand entails taking a proponent’s arguments to justify his belief, and showing that the identical argument also justifies absurd conclusions – like leprechauns.
This is what I’ve only ever done.
Here (again) is Wiki to set you straight on this:
“It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion…”
“…Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
Do you understand the difference now?
-
Vlad,
Just to correct you once again on this point, the “horse laugh” fallacy (or the appeal to ridicule) entails the deliberate trivialisation of an argument with an unflattering comparison. If, say, you said, “I believe in God” and I replied with, “well I believe in leprechauns then” to make your belief look foolish that would be the horse laugh fallacy.
I have never done this.
The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand entails taking a proponent’s arguments to justify his belief, and showing that the identical argument also justifies absurd conclusions – like leprechauns.
This is what I’ve only ever done.
Here (again) is Wiki to set you straight on this:
“It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion…”
“…Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
Do you understand the difference now?
What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?.what has god got to do with the impossible? What has Hillside, the forum’s leading proponent of the idea that anything’s possible, got to do with the impossible? Neigh. You’ve got it wrong again Hillside.
This is horses laugh of course wivabiroff gaslighting chucked in. Get help.
-
Vlad,
What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?.what has god got to do with the impossible? What is Hillside the forums leading proponent of the idea that anything’s possible got to do with the impossible? Neigh. You’ve got it wrong again Hillside.
This is horses laugh of course wivabiroff gaslighting chucked in.
What on earth has “the impossible” got to do with it? I’ve just taken the trouble to explain to you again the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum. You, typically, have ignored that in favour of incoherence and irrelevance. Do you genuinely not understand even simple, carefully laid our argument in plain words or are you so pathologically dishonest that you will not engage with it?
Get help.
Get educated.
-
What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?
Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".
You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?
Get a grip.
-
Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".
You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?
Get a grip.
Are you aware that you have described the conclusion for Leprechauns to be absurd. Where does the absurdity come from?
-
Vlad,
Are you aware that you have described the conclusion for Leprechauns to be absurd. Where does the absurdity come from?
What are you trying to say here, and why have you ignored (again) being corrected on the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum?
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to say here, and why have you ignored (again) being corrected on the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum?
How are you defining absurdum colloquially or by it's original meaning which you have previously discussed? In other words ridiculous or impossible?
-
Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".
You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?
Get a grip.
The leprechauns aren't the absurdity. The absurdity is that the arguments that Vlad use "work" equally as well if you replace "God" by "leprechaun" or, indeed, any assumed not to exist entity.
-
The leprechauns aren't the absurdity. The absurdity is that the arguments that Vlad use "work" equally as well if you replace "God" by "leprechaun" or, indeed, any assumed not to exist entity.
I don’t assume God doesn’t exist? The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t assume God doesn’t exist Thomas Nagel doesn’t assume God does not exist but hopes he doesn’t exist.
The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.
God is in the same category as universal simulators. So why not abandon Leprechauns and use universal simulators instead............answer is...They aren’t funny.
-
The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.
Yes we can. There is a difference between assumption/presumption and knowing.
So the black swan business means that we cannot know that black swans don't exist until or unless we have exhausted every possible avenue to find them. That may be hard enough with something entirely naturalistic, but of course becomes impossible with a supernatural claim.
But not being able to prove that something doesn't exist (which realistically is non-sensical from your black swan argument) does not mean that we cannot reasonably live and make decisions on the assumption or presumption that it does not exist, particularly where there is no evidence for its existence. We can and we do, all the time. There are countless things that have not been proven not to exist (e.g. ghosts, leprechauns, Thor, FSM etc etc) yet we comfortably live our lives under an assumption and presumption that they don't exist as there is no credible evidence for their existence Were evidence to emerge for their existence we would change our starting point assumptions, but until then we don't. Same applies to god.
-
Vlad,
God is in the same category as universal simulators.
Only if you arbitrarily confine these simulators to the non-material, and only if you reduce their number to one (unless you've become a pantheist).
Oh, and at best that would give you deism. If you want to claim theism though then there are various additional characteristics necessary that a universal simulator wouldn't need to have at all.
Apart from all that though...
-
Vlad,
Only if you arbitrarily confine these simulators to the non-material, and only if you reduce their number to one (unless you've become a pantheist).
Oh, and at best that would give you deism. If you want to claim theism though then there are various additional characteristics necessary that a universal simulator wouldn't need to have at all.
Apart from all that though...
We can say they are not dependent on their existence on this universe and that is what puts them in the same category. Anything else is fiddling around the edges.
I’m afraid you’ve only manage to ban God from the league of material universe builders. But even then i’m Sure He could find a way into that.
-
Yes we can. There is a difference between assumption/presumption and knowing.
So the black swan business means that we cannot know that black swans don't exist until or unless we have exhausted every possible avenue to find them. That may be hard enough with something entirely naturalistic, but of course becomes impossible with a supernatural claim.
But not being able to prove that something doesn't exist (which realistically is non-sensical from your black swan argument) does not mean that we cannot reasonably live and make decisions on the assumption or presumption that it does not exist, particularly where there is no evidence for its existence. We can and we do, all the time. There are countless things that have not been proven not to exist (e.g. ghosts, leprechauns, Thor, FSM etc etc) yet we comfortably live our lives under an assumption and presumption that they don't exist as there is no credible evidence for their existence Were evidence to emerge for their existence we would change our starting point assumptions, but until then we don't. Same applies to god.
Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.
What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.
-
Vlad,
We can say they are not dependent on their existence on this universe and that is what puts them in the same category. Anything else is fiddling around the edges.
If you want to change your claim "god" to a deistic one that may or may not just be an advanced alien occupying a material level of universe abstraction requiring none of the characteristics necessary for a theistic god (answering prayers etc) that's quite a change of horses mid-stream, but ok...
I’m afraid you’ve only manage to ban God from the league of material universe builders. But even then i’m Sure He could find a way into that.
Did you intend that to mean something comprehensible?
-
Vlad the deist/advanced alienist,
Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.
What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.
You're all over the place here.
-
Vlad,
If you want to change your claim "god" to a deistic one that may or may not just be an advanced alien occupying a material level of universe abstraction requiring none of the characteristics necessary for a theistic god (answering prayers etc) that's quite a change of horses mid-stream, but ok...
Did you intend that to mean something comprehensible?
Again you are odiddling around the edges. A universal simulator does not necessarily make a universe and just leave it running. Neither is it necessarily a material alien or aliens. You seem to have gone full IMAX in your projection.
-
Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.
That's irrelevant - the argument that leads to assuming leprechauns exist is the same as that for other entities that may seem less ridiculous (albeit whether something is ridiculous is a completely subjective point).
But what about Thor - is Thor ridiculous Vlad? Why aren't you arguing for Thor on the basis of your train of argument that leads from a complete lack of evidence for the existence of an entity to thinking we should assume it exists.
-
Vlad,
Again you are odiddling around the edges. A universal simulator does not necessarily make a universe and just leave it running. Neither is it necessarily a material alien or aliens. You seem to have gone full IMAX in your projection.
Once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the burden of proof. If you want to claim that your belief "god" and the belief "universe simulators" are the same thing, then great swathes of what you think the former requires (non-materiality, intervention in human affairs etc) are no longer necessary. If that's really where you want to be though, that's a matter for you.
-
What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.
I suggest you take that up with BH. In my list I used some things that people might find ridiculous (leprechauns, FSG) and others that people aren't likely to find ridiculous (Thor, ghosts). The point isn't about the preposterousness of the claimed entity, but the preposterousness of the argument that starts with a lack of evidence and concludes that they exist or should be assumed to exist.
-
Vlad,
Once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the burden of proof. If you want to claim that your belief "god" and the belief "universe simulators" are the same thing, then great swathes of what you think the former requires (non-materiality, intervention in human affairs etc) are no longer necessary. If that's really where you want to be though, that's a matter for you.
I dont have a problem with burden of proof. Any positive assertion Carrie's one. My problem is agreeing with what you propose as the status quo.
-
That's irrelevant - the argument that leads to assuming leprechauns exist is the same as that for other entities that may seem less ridiculous (albeit whether something is ridiculous is a completely subjective point).
But what about Thor - is Thor ridiculous Vlad? Why aren't you arguing for Thor on the basis of your train of argument that leads from a complete lack of evidence for the existence of an entity to thinking we should assume it exists.
Thor soars with other Gods. With this pantheon the line is between divinity and super humanity. That Thor spars with other gods introduces alienation within the divine rather than a once and for all crisis. Thor lacks comprehensiveness.
-
Vlad,
I dont have a problem with burden of proof. Any positive assertion Carrie's one. My problem is agreeing with what you propose as the status quo.
Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.
-
Hi, Owls,
Vlad has poor literacy – spelling, grammar, ability to construct coherent sentences, etc are all weak. I generally don’t comment on it though because I think it’s unfair to do so. If I can work out what I think he’s trying to say then I do my best to respond to that.
That said, I find it hard to see how someone who claims to have read around his subject hasn’t learnt from his reading what clear writing should be.
Or how anyone cannot have learned, over the years of reading (?) posts on this Forum, can fail to learn therefrom!
As you know I don’t share your beliefs, but that seems rather lovely to me.
I wish I could take credit for originating the greeting, but I was taught it by a High Priestess of many years standing without whose advice and guidance I would almost certainly be a far worse basket case than I actually am!
To you personally -
Bluehillside:
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours, always!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Vlad,
Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.
They are the same in what matters. Their existence is independent of the universe they have created. It looks as if you are trying an occam's razor here. We know not what is required.
Nor what extra properties the creator/s may have.
-
Vlad,
They are the same in what matters.
So you don’t think your god’s immateriality or intervention in human affairs matters? Or indeed that there’s only one of him?
Well, that’s new at least.
Their existence is independent of the universe they have created.
So? Maybe they’d also be inhabitants of another universe they haven’t created. How does that align with your version of god?
It looks as if you are trying an occam's razor here.
Presumably because you don’t understand what that term means.
We know not what is required.
Yes we do – the ability to create a universe: no more, no less.
Nor what extra properties the creator/s may have.
Which is your burden of proof problem. Even if you assert your god to be that which is necessary for universe creators, you have all your work ahead of you to justify the addition of all the non-necessary properties (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, being alone in the endeavour etc) that you think to be its characteristics too.
Good luck with that though.
-
Thor soars with other Gods.
So does Thor exist then Vlad - as described. In other words a god. And if so how does that square with your purported monotheistic religious views. You cannot have a one-and-only god and then a bunch of other gods. And if Thor doesn't exist in your view you are back to the special pleading for your god (in the absence of evidence of its existence) while rejecting the existence of other gods (also in the absence of evidence of its existence).
The problem you have Vlad is you are either special pleading or you are consistent in an argument ... bur one that leads to belief in (or at the very least an assumption of existence) of leprechauns, FSM, ghosts and Thor (and indeed all of the thousands of other gods purported to exist).
-
Vlad,
So you don’t think your god’s immateriality or intervention in human affairs matters? Or indeed that there’s only one of him?
No, I’m afraid even if you assent to simulated universe you cannot say that the creator is necessarily material or immaterial or that it is forbidden from intervention. Or that it is a contingent or the necessary being or that it is in base reality or not.
Regards burden of proof, I have no more burden than you.
-
So does Thor exist then Vlad - as described. In other words a god. And if so how does that square with your purported monotheistic religious views. You cannot have a one-and-only god and then a bunch of other gods. And if Thor doesn't exist in your view you are back to the special pleading for your god (in the absence of evidence of its existence) while rejecting the existence of other gods (also in the absence of evidence of its existence).
The problem you have Vlad is you are either special pleading or you are consistent in an argument ... bur one that leads to belief in (or at the very least an assumption of existence) of leprechauns, FSM, ghosts and Thor (and indeed all of the thousands of other gods purported to exist).
Thor is effectively a folk tale about the divine and a view of it that I’m fails to rise above superhumanity. He is the Big man idea of God. That’s why you guys love him so.
-
Vlad,
No, I’m afraid even if you assent to simulated universe you cannot say that the creator is necessarily material or immaterial or that it is forbidden from intervention. Or that it is a contingent or the necessary being or that it is in base reality or not.
Regards burden of proof, I have no more burden than you.
Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?
The burden of proof for a claim rests with the claimant. Try to understand this much at least:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
-
Thor is effectively a folk tale ...
Why is Thor a folk tale and your god not a folk tale - there is no more or less evidence for the existence of either. Seems to me your argument is simply based on whether people continue to believe in a god - once they don't that god becomes a folk tale. That seems to be a very poor argument ad populum - your god, or Thor either exists or doesn't exist, whether people believe they exist has no relevance to the question of their actual existence.
If you aren't equating existence with belief then both are equally folk tales as the existence or otherwise of neither is based on evidence of their existence.
-
Vlad,
Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?
The burden of proof for a claim rests with the claimant. Try to understand this much at least:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do, you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like and all we can say of it is that it’s existence is independent of any thing in our universe. It is not contingent on our universe but necessary for it. As I say, no more burden than you
-
Vlad,
Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?
I’m sorry. That doesn’t even come near a definition of gaslighting.
-
Why is Thor a folk tale and your god not a folk tale - there is no more or less evidence for the existence of either. Seems to me your argument is simply based on whether people continue to believe in a god - once they don't that god becomes a folk tale. That seems to be a very poor argument ad populum - your god, or Thor either exists or doesn't exist, whether people believe they exist has no relevance to the question of their actual existence.
If you aren't equating existence with belief then both are equally folk tales as the existence or otherwise of neither is based on evidence of their existence.
No it is a folk tale about the divine. That is different from any old folk tale. You cut out the salient feature and made a straw man.
What I am saying is that if Paul says Christianity is seeing through the glass darkly at the divine then Thor is seeing it even more darkly.
-
I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do, you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like...
You do actually. The extent to which it is 'reasonable' (which is highly questionable) depends on the argument proposed for it, which is explicitly based on an extrapolation of our own universe and our own abilities. That is to say, any 'reasonable' idea of simulators would be mortal and be using computing technology.
It is also the case that every time you compare universe simulators to god, you make a fool of yourself and make any discussion of the existence of god with you utterly pointless because your view of what constitutes 'god' is clearly not fixed.
-
Vlad,
I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do,…
Depends whether you mean "rational" as a possibility or that it's more likely the case than not.
I agree with the former, and have no idea about the latter. Nor have you.
…you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like and all we can say of it is that it’s existence is independent of any thing in our universe.
Yes you do get to say that – what you get to say in fact is what would be necessary for the basic premise (universe creation) to stand but no more. Anything else that wouldn’t be necessary for the premise to stand is a different matter entirely. Even if for the sake of argument we agree the premise “universe creators” that doesn’t imply that we also agree all the extra characteristics you think to be present on your god (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc).
Basically you’re saying here, “if you agree with my premise “horses” then you’re also agreeing with my claim “unicorns”". Even you should be able to see what’s wrong with that.
It is not contingent on our universe but necessary for it. As I say, no more burden than you
And as you’ve been corrected several times now, yes it is. Even if the sake of discussion we agree the initial premise (universe creators/horses) the burden of proof remains to get from there to the non-necessary claims of the extras (immateriality/wings etc).
I gave you a link to the Wiki page on burden of proof. You should have read it.
-
You do actually. The extent to which it is 'reasonable' (which is highly questionable) depends on the argument proposed for it, which is explicitly based on an extrapolation of our own universe and our own abilities. That is to say, any 'reasonable' idea of simulators would be mortal and be using computing technology.
It is also the case that every time you compare universe simulators to god, you make a fool of yourself and make any discussion of the existence of god with you utterly pointless because your view of what constitutes 'god' is clearly not fixed.
I be told you all we can possibly and reasonably say.
You are now embarked on a journey of special pleading for a universe not contingent on this one following naturalism. Hell we don’t know if this universe is completely naturalistic. The only one making a fool of themselves is you.
I’m afraid this is the idea on which your world view crumbles.
-
You are now embarked on a journey of special pleading for a universe not contingent on this one following naturalism. Hell we don’t know if this universe is completely naturalistic. The only one making a fool of themselves is you.
So we can add 'special pleading' to the list of things you are totally ignorant about. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: to the questionable extent that SU is reasonable, it is based on the argument for it - which is based on naturalism and technology.
I’m afraid this is the idea on which your world view crumbles.
Says the comedian who claims to believe in god but can't make up his mind what the word means...
-
Vlad,
Depends whether you mean "rational" as a possibility or that it's more likely the case than not.
I agree with the former, and have no idea about the latter. Nor have you.
Yes you do get to say that – what you get to say in fact is what would be necessary for the basic premise (universe creation) to stand but no more. Anything else that wouldn’t be necessary for the premise to stand is a different matter entirely. Even if for the sake of argument we agree the premise “universe creators” that doesn’t imply that we also agree all the extra characteristics you think to be present on your god (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc).
Basically you’re saying here, “if you agree with my premise “horses” then you’re also agreeing with my claim “unicorns”". Even you should be able to see what’s wrong with that.
And as you’ve been corrected several times now, yes it is. Even if the sake of discussion we agree the initial premise (universe creators/horses) the burden of proof remains to get from there to the non-necessary claims of the extras (immateriality/wings etc).
I gave you a link to the Wiki page on burden of proof. You should have read it.
You are specially pleading the universe of the creator. Being like ours. You don’t have that luxury.
You are on territory where the necessities of nature are not necessary.
You could argue that the universe of the creator is an extension of ours, the same universe. But that isn’t simulated universe in the sense de Grasse Tyson is talking about. Or that PZ Myers is talking about. The BBC bitesize on this should explain this to you.
It changes naught then since the universe is still a contingent whole dependent on a necessary being.
As for the likelihood of the creator being in base reality or not. hHow would
would you know?
-
I don’t assume God doesn’t exist?
I didn't say that. 0/10 for reading comprehension.
The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.
Yes we can. There's a small chance our assumption might be wrong but I'll take those odds.
God is in the same category as universal simulators. So why not abandon Leprechauns and use universal simulators instead............answer is...They aren’t funny.
You don't want to replace God in the argument with another version of God, you want to replace him with something that everybody is comfortable with assuming does not exist.
-
Vlad,
You are specially pleading the universe of the creator. Being like ours. You don’t have that luxury.
Nope – no idea. What are you trying to say here?
You are on territory where the necessities of nature are not necessary.
Swahili perhaps? Mandarin Chinese? Your inability to construct a coherent thought is letting you down again here.
You could argue that the universe of the creator is an extension of ours, the same universe. But that isn’t simulated universe in the sense de Grasse Tyson is talking about. Or that PZ Myers is talking about. The BBC bitesize on this should explain this to you.
I’ll leave you to knock down the straw man of your own invention here I think.
It changes naught then since the universe is still a contingent whole dependent on a necessary being.
No, there’s no “is” about it. It’s a “could be”, albeit that that then gives you the problem of infinite regress.
In any case, neither this nor the gibberish above has anything to do with the post you thought you were replying to. If we agree the (highly dubious) speculation “universe creators” just to see where that takes us all we’ll have agreed is that which is necessary for universe creators. That does not though imply the necessity for the other characteristics you think “matter” for your belief “god” – immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. We can agree in principle “universe creators” without needing to agree any of these additional characteristics, so even if we did agree that you’d have a huge burden of proof to layer on all the other stuff of your claim "god".
Short version: you’re still lost in “if horses, then unicorns” territory here.
As for the likelihood of the creator being in base reality or not. hHow would
would you know?
You’re the one claiming a “base reality” creator remember, not me. And yes – how would you know?
-
I didn't say that. 0/10 for reading comprehension.
Yes we can. There's a small chance our assumption might be wrong but I'll take those odds.
You don't want to replace God in the argument with another version of God, you want to replace him with something that everybody is comfortable with assuming does not exist.
If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?
I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.
-
Vlad,
If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?
The reality we perceive is itself probability based for reasons that have been explained to you countless times. Within that paradigm though gravity applies, logic functions and the claims leprechauns/gods are, for the same reasons, absurd.
I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.
So would I, and on your god not existing too for the same reasons. How would the bookies know when to pay out though?
-
Vlad,
Nope – no idea. What are you trying to say here?
Swahili perhaps? Mandarin Chinese? Your inability to construct a coherent thought is letting you down again here.
I’ll leave you to knock down the straw man of your own invention here I think.
No, there’s no “is” about it. It’s a “could be”, albeit that that then gives you the problem of infinite regress.
In any case, neither this nor the gibberish above has anything to do with the post you thought you were replying to. If we agree the (highly dubious) speculation “universe creators” just to see where that takes us all we’ll have agreed is that which is necessary for universe creators. That does not though imply the necessity for the other characteristics you think “matter” for your belief “god” – immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. We can agree in principle “universe creators” without needing to agree any of these additional characteristics, so even if we did agree that you’d have a huge burden of proof to layer on all the other stuff of your claim "god".
Short version: you’re still lost in “if horses, then unicorns” territory here.
You’re the one claiming a “base reality” creator remember, not me. And yes – how would you know?
I’m only claiming that it is a reasonable idea and that you are special pleading that naturalism and contingency must be the state of the creators universe.
I’ve freely acknowledged that there could be a naturalistic creator but that may not matter because it fulfils the position of being the necessity for our universe.
You on the other hand are demonstrating a peculiar yet fascinating inability to acknowledge it’s only maybe and it seems that it is necessary but not contingent on our universe.
This strange mental tango is I would move evidence of an internal conflict going on and is part of your experience of God.
-
Vlad,
The reality we perceive is itself probability based for reasons that have been explained to you countless times. Within that paradigm though gravity applies, logic functions and the claims leprechauns/gods are, for the same reasons, absurd.
So would I, and on your god not existing too for the same reasons. How would the bookies know when to pay out though?
My God is not a hyperdiminutive Irish person, found only in Ireland with a cheeky grin green suit or shillelaghs. What are you thinking of?
-
Vlad,
I’m only claiming that it is a reasonable idea…
What is – the idea of universe creators? Yes, it’s “reasonable” in the sense that it’s not inherently contradictory. Try to remember thought that “reasonable” and “probable” are not synonyms.
…and that you are special pleading that naturalism and contingency must be the state of the creators universe.
Except of course that I’ve done no such thing. Have you any sense of how wearisome your endless misrepresentations can be?
I’ve freely acknowledged that there could be a naturalistic creator but that may not matter because it fulfils the position of being the necessity for our universe.
Fine, but you still have all your work ahead of you then to show the additional non-naturalistic components your think your “god” to possess are reasonable too when there’s no necessity for them in your premise.
You on the other hand are demonstrating a peculiar yet fascinating inability to acknowledge it’s only maybe and it seems that it is necessary but not contingent on our universe.
See above re your endless misrepresentations.
This strange mental tango is I would move evidence of an internal conflict going on and is part of your experience of God.
No, it’s part of my experience of someone who asserts there to be a god but cannot or will not examine openly and honestly the arguments he relies on to justify his claim.
My God is not a hyperdiminutive Irish person, found only in Ireland with a cheeky grin green suit or shillelaghs. What are you thinking of?
How many fucking times does this fucking well have to be fucking explained to you before you finally stop fucking straw manning it?
Yet again: what you’re listing here are just the characteristics of the claim “leprechauns”. The claim “god” entails (mostly) different characteristics. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH CLAIM THOUGH HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT. WHAT HAS GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT IS THE ARGUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY EACH CLAIM ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.
Please, for the love of whatever you think to be holy write this down willya rather than just repeat exactly the same mistake over and over and over again…
-
Vlad,
What is – the idea of universe creators? Yes, it’s “reasonable” in the sense that it’s not inherently contradictory. Try to remember thought that “reasonable” and “probable” are not synonyms.
Except of course that I’ve done no such thing. Have you any sense of how wearisome your endless misrepresentations can be?
Fine, but you still have all your work ahead of you then to show the additional non-naturalistic components your think your “god” to possess are reasonable too when there’s no necessity for them in your premise.
See above re your endless misrepresentations.
No, it’s part of my experience of someone who asserts there to be a god but cannot or will not examine openly and honestly the arguments he relies on to justify his claim.
How many fucking times does this fucking well have to be fucking explained to you before you finally stop fucking straw manning it?
Yet again: what you’re listing here are just the characteristics of the claim “leprechauns”. The claim “god” entails (mostly) different characteristics. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH CLAIM THOUGH HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT. WHAT HAS GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT IS THE ARGUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY EACH CLAIM ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.
Please, for the love of whatever you think to be holy write this down willya rather than just repeat exactly the same mistake over and over and over again…
I don’t have to go any further to justify a non naturalistic creator being outside and independent of this universe than you do justifying a naturalistic creator. Where on earth are you getting that from?
You are also not facing up that in any case.
The creator/s are not dependent on anything in this universe for their existence but they are the necessary being for our universe. So your appeal that I have to justify any further features is wrong.
-
No it is a folk tale about the divine.
Nope that is unevidenced assertion and opinion. Firstly there is no evidence that the divine is even a thing. But in addition your dismissal of Thor as somehow a little story about something else rather than being a god in of itself is just assertion based on special pleading.
Someone could just as well play the same game - so the christian god is a folk tale about the universe. Except of course, unlike the divine we have ample evidence that the universe exists.
-
Vlad,
I don’t have to go any further to justify a non naturalistic creator being outside and independent of this universe than you do justifying a naturalistic creator. Where on earth are you getting that from?
You have to go very much further as you have no basis to assume that a creator (or creators) of the universe we perceive must also have been “non-naturalistic”. Agreeing that you’d need a horse to compete in the Grand National doesn’t mean we’d thereby have agreed there are unicorns too.
You are also not facing up that in any case.
For those of us working in English?
The creator/s are not dependent on anything in this universe for their existence…
It’s “might not”, not “would not” but ok…
…but they are the necessary being for our universe.
Again, “could be” – not “are”. You’re overreaching again.
So your appeal that I have to justify any further features is wrong.
And the non sequitur to finish. See my first para above to see where you’ve gone wrong again.
-
If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?
I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.
What do you think the reduction ad absurdum is? What do you think we are trying to tell you when we show that your argument works as well for leprechauns or any entity as it does for God?
-
Vlad,
Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.
Hillside, they all ready have the divine elements.
They aren't beholden to anything in this universe.
Bad luck old boy first Leprechauns disqualified and you finding theological attributes reasonable.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, they all ready have the divine elements.
Horses have unicornal elements too. How does that help you?
They aren't beholden to anything in this universe.
I don’t know what you mean by “beholden” (and nor do you), but you have no basis just to assume that supposed creators of the universe we perceive wouldn't be governed by whatever “nature” means in a different universe we can’t perceive.
Bad luck old boy…
For the love of god look up “irony" willya? You just fell apart again like a cheap suit, then had the front to say “bad luck” to me? Words fails me.
…first Leprechauns disqualified…
It’s the arguments for leprechauns (and gods), and you haven’t "disqualified" anything yet…
…and you finding theological attributes reasonable.
What “theological attributes” do you think I find reasonable exactly? Do you also think unicornal attributes are reasonable because we can agree on the existence of horses?
Why not?
-
Vlad,
Horses have unicornal elements too. How does that help you?
I don’t know what you mean by “beholden” (and nor do you), but you have no basis just to assume that supposed creators of the universe we perceive wouldn't be governed by whatever “nature” means in a different universe we can’t perceive.
For the love of god look up “irony" willya? You just fell apart again like a cheap suit, then had the front to say “bad luck” to me? Words fails me.
It’s the arguments for leprechauns (and gods), and you haven’t "disqualified" anything yet…
What “theological attributes” do you think I find reasonable exactly? Do you also think unicornal attributes are reasonable because we can agree on the existence of horses?
Why not?
Hillside as I have frequently said Firstly they are not dependent for on our universe for how they are secondly even God has a nature, thirdly by dint of point one they already have the divine attributes. Fourthly this reasonable idea puts a question mark over the natural supernatural divide we cannot say what they are like or whether they are necessary or contingent in their own universe. Fithly, Your definition of natural is therefore stripped of everything in this case apart from god/s or no gods. If these exist, they are gods. And indeed God or Gods of this universe since they are necessary.
-
Vlad,
Hillside as I have frequently said…
And as I have just as frequently corrected you…
Firstly they are not dependent for on our universe for how they are secondly…
Who’s “they”? If you mean supposed universe creators then that “are” is overreaching again (“need not necessarily be” is as much as you can reasonably speculate), and in any case if you want to conjecture a god flitting between universes then you cannot arbitrarily deny the same option for my conjecture about leprechauns.
…even God has a nature,…
Thank you for that faith claim. My faith claim is that leprechauns “have a nature” too. Why should either faith claim be taken more seriously than the other?
…thirdly by dint of point one they already have the divine attributes.
Depends what you mean by “divine attributes”, but as I keep schooling you even if you want to call creating a universe a “divine attribute” you’re still a long way short of the ones you think to be essential for your belief “god” (supernaturalism for example), so you’re still mired in “horses have unicorn attributes, therefore unicorns” territory. How does that help you?
Fourthly this reasonable idea puts a question mark over the natural supernatural divide we cannot say what they are like or whether they are necessary or contingent in their own universe.
Do you want to have another run at that, only this time expressing something coherent? If you’re trying to say here though that universe creators need not be been supernatural (whatever that would mean) then that’s the central pillar of your god claim defenestrated I’d have thought.
Fithly, Your definition of natural is therefore stripped of everything in this case apart from god/s or no gods. If these exist, they are gods.
You’re collapsing into gibberish again. I have no idea what you mean by “supernatural” (and nor have you) but if you’re groping toward something like, “not governed by the laws and forces of the observable universe” then you’re still stuck with the problem of showing that these supposed creators weren’t (or aren’t) entirely subject to the laws and forces of whatever universe they do happen to inhabit – which would be pretty ungodlike I’d have thought if you want to claim a god of the “omnis”.
And indeed God or Gods of this universe since they are necessary.
A highly dubious proposition but, even if it were to be true, then of course you’d then be stuck with explaining why this god/gods would not itself require its own creator and so on through infinite regress. This remains your basic Fletcher’s tunnel mistake.
So thanks for your dog’s breakfast of an attempt at reasoning here, but it remains utterly hopeless for the reasons I’ve set out.
Again.
-
Vlad,
And as I have just as frequently corrected you…
Who’s “they”? If you mean supposed universe creators then that “are” is overreaching again (“need not necessarily be” is as much as you can reasonably speculate), and in any case if you want to conjecture a god flitting between universes then you cannot arbitrarily deny the same option for my conjecture about leprechauns.
Thank you for that faith claim. My faith claim is that leprechauns “have a nature” too. Why should either faith claim be taken more seriously than the other?
Depends what you mean by “divine attributes”, but as I keep schooling you even if you want to call creating a universe a “divine attribute” you’re still a long way short of the ones you think to be essential for your belief “god” (supernaturalism for example), so you’re still mired in “horses have unicorn attributes, therefore unicorns” territory. How does that help you?
Do you want to have another run at that, only this time expressing something coherent? If you’re trying to say here though that universe creators need not be been supernatural (whatever that would mean) then that’s the central pillar of your god claim defenestrated I’d have thought.
You’re collapsing into gibberish again. I have no idea what you mean by “supernatural” (and nor have you) but if you’re groping toward something like, “not governed by the laws and forces of the observable universe” then you’re still stuck with the problem of showing that these supposed creators weren’t (or aren’t) entirely subject to the laws and forces of whatever universe they do happen to inhabit – which would be pretty ungodlike I’d have thought if you want to claim a god of the “omnis”.
A highly dubious proposition but, even if it were to be true, then of course you’d then be stuck with explaining why this god/gods would not itself require its own creator and so on through infinite regress. This remains your basic Fletcher’s tunnel mistake.
So thanks for your dog’s breakfast of an attempt at reasoning here, but it remains utterly hopeless for the reasons I’ve set out.
Again.
Please reference some genuine Leprechaun believers. Can’t? Oh well now we’ve got that shit out of the way, I suggest that you are conflating God and Leprechauns because they are both in your eyes unfalsifiable as if unfalsifiability was the reason for my belief. It isn’t..
The divine entities invoked by SU theory. May or may not be contingent. That doesn’t detract from them being minds that have created the universe and therefore their divinity.
I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus, who incidentally seems to have fathered your posts. So then even regression doesn’t detract from divinity.
You are out of luck because this universe would have been created by will. That is certainly not in the atheist playbook.
Universal naturalism cannot be supported by methodological naturalism in this universe Hillside let alone another. Your brand of atheism Hillside has become “zombie” thanks to Greene, Bostrom and De Grasse Tyson.
-
The divine entities invoked by SU theory.
Genuine laugh out loud!
As long as you persist in this idiocy, it makes your notion of god totally undefined because it changes from post to post, so talking about it is pointless. It also makes you look daft.
-
I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus ...
BH can speak for himself, but of course I would deny that assertion, unless your definition of a god is something defined by people as a god.
-
BH can speak for himself, but of course I would deny that assertion, unless your definition of a god is something defined by people as a god.
Firstly, what has this to do with a creator of this universe having the divine attributes.
Secondly your own arguments don't allow the questioning of the divinity of Zeus since in the argument "I believe in one less god than you" the gods we mutually disagree with include Zeus and most other gods who show ancestry or in other words contingent regression.
You have no warrant though to limit the creator of this universe as necessarily contingent although it doesn't matter if it is.
In other words, who created the creator of this universe is not a specifically atheist question.
-
Firstly, what has this to do with a creator of this universe having the divine attributes.
Secondly your own arguments don't allow the questioning of the divinity of Zeus since in the argument "I believe in one less god than you" the gods we mutually disagree with include Zeus and most other gods who show ancestry or in other words contingent regression.
You have no warrant though to limit the creator of this universe as necessarily contingent although it doesn't matter if it is.
In other words, who created the creator of this universe is not a specifically atheist question.
None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.
-
None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.
No material evidence, but that's true also of philosophical empiricism on which your assertion of "no evidence" is based.
My faith is based on encounter through revelation. In terms of the intellectual philosophical arguments on the way to encounter,
For me they are the numinous and what is known as the moral argument oh and the semi revealed, yet intellectual realisation of God evasion.
-
Vlad,
Please reference some genuine Leprechaun believers. Can’t?
Relevance?
Oh well now we’ve got that shit out of the way,…
If by “that shit” you mean your argumentum ad populum then I agree – let’s dispense with it.
I suggest that you are conflating God and Leprechauns…
I suggest you really, really should stop lying about that. If you can find even one post from the thousands I’ve made here that does conflate your belief “god” with my belief “leprechauns” rather than do precisely the opposite of that, then you’ll have a point. Until then though…
…because they are both in your eyes unfalsifiable as if unfalsifiability was the reason for my belief. It isn’t.
See above.
As for your reasons for your belief, if they really are the ones you listed and I kicked all around the room only for you to ignore those rebuttals, then you might want reconsider your justifications for your belief.
The divine entities invoked by SU theory.
Very funny. First it’s a conjecture or a hypothesis at best, not a theory; second, even then it does not necessitate features you think to be essential for a god – supernaturalism, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. If you really want to paint yourself into the corner of worshipping what could just be an advanced alien species though that’s a matter for you and your therapist.
May or may not be contingent. That doesn’t detract from them being minds that have created the universe and therefore their divinity.
Did you know that when the Spanish and their horses first reached South America the indigenous peoples thought they were divine too – for the same reason you just assume potential universe creators would be. Short version: your “therefore” has no business being there.
I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus, who incidentally seems to have fathered your posts. So then even regression doesn’t detract from divinity.
Err…does it no occur to you that none of them were real either – that is, none of them were actually divine at all?
Perhaps if you had a nice lie down with a damp towel wrapped round your head you’d feel a bit more sensible afterwards?
You are out of luck because this universe would have been created by will. That is certainly not in the atheist playbook.
Your (admittedly already tenuous) grip on reason is loosening fast here. If you want to assume that the observable universe was created, and you want to assume too that it was created by an act of will, still that would have nothing to say to theism or to atheism. Theism requires a god or gods, and gods supposedly must have various properties that universe creators need not have at all.
Universal naturalism cannot be supported by methodological naturalism in this universe Hillside let alone another. Your brand of atheism Hillside has become “zombie” thanks to Greene, Bostrom and De Grasse Tyson.
Your random word generator seems to be stuck onn overdrive just now – suggest you start again by looking up “burden of proof” and taking baby steps from there.
Good luck with that.
-
No material evidence, but that's true also of philosophical empiricism on which your assertion of "no evidence" is based.
My faith is based on encounter through revelation. In terms of the intellectual philosophical arguments on the way to encounter,
For me they are the numinous and what is known as the moral argument oh and the semi revealed, yet intellectual realisation of God evasion.
Category error.
Philosophies are merely ideas, theories, opinions etc. Sure ones that may prove useful in deciding on behavioural choices, but they are entirely subjective - not objective in the sense that they objectively exist outside of people's minds. No people (or other equivalently intelligent beings), no philosophy.
Are you really claiming that your (and other gods) are like that - objectively non-existent, but merely an idea inside (certain) people's minds. If so, I'd agree with you as you've just described the classic notion of a man-made god, but I thought you guys thought that your god actually existed outside of people's minds.
-
Vlad,
My faith is based on encounter through revelation.
Except of course you have means to justify your belief that that's what actually happened. Your claim about that has no more epistemic value than my claim that I once bumped into a leprechaun.
-
Vlad,
Relevance?
If by “that shit” you mean your argumentum ad populum then I agree – let’s dispense with it.
I suggest you really, really should stop lying about that. If you can find even one post from the thousands I’ve made here that does conflate your belief “god” with my belief “leprechauns” rather than do precisely the opposite of that, then you’ll have a point. Until then though…
See above.
As for your reasons for your belief, if they really are the ones you listed and I kicked all around the room only for you to ignore those rebuttals, then you might want reconsider your justifications for your belief.
Very funny. First it’s a conjecture or a hypothesis at best, not a theory; second, even then it does not necessitate features you think to be essential for a god – supernaturalism, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. If you really want to paint yourself into the corner of worshipping what could just be an advanced alien species though that’s a matter for you and your therapist.
Did you know that when the Spanish and their horses first reached South America the indigenous peoples thought they were divine too – for the same reason you just assume potential universe creators would be. Short version: your “therefore” has no business being there.
Err…does it no occur to you that none of them were real either – that is, none of them were actually divine at all?
Perhaps if you had a nice lie down with a damp towel wrapped round your head you’d feel a bit more sensible afterwards?
Your (admittedly already tenuous) grip on reason is loosening fast here. If you want to assume that the observable universe was created, and you want to assume too that it was created by an act of will, still that would have nothing to say to theism or to atheism. Theism requires a god or gods, and gods supposedly must have various properties that universe creators need not have at all.
Your random word generator seems to be stuck onn overdrive just now – suggest you start again by looking up “burden of proof” and taking baby steps from there.
Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being. That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand of atheism.
-
None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.
Of course Zeus is a god. All the stories I've read about him say he is a god. There's no doubt.
Of course, all the stories I've read about Zeus are fiction. Zeus is a god but he is (almost certainly) not real, the same as Vlad's god. Would you deny that Hercule Poirot was a private detective? No, but you would deny that he was real. The questions of the nature of something and its being real are orthogonal.
-
Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being. That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand of atheism.
Laughable, makes your faith laughable and inherently incoherent and contradictory, does nothing to dent any rational version of atheism, and doesn't address most of the post you quoted.
Forget leprechauns or reductio ad absurdum arguments, your faith, as you have expressed it here, is inconsistent and incoherent, it is therefore false. QED.
-
Of course Zeus is a god. All the stories I've read about him say he is a god. There's no doubt.
Of course, all the stories I've read about Zeus are fiction. Zeus is a god but he is (almost certainly) not real, the same as Vlad's god. Would you deny that Hercule Poirot was a private detective? No, but you would deny that he was real. The questions of the nature of something and its being real are orthogonal.
This suffers from the same issue as the Prof's. Namely the warrant philosophical empiricism has in determining what is real and what isn't.
-
Vlad,
So having taken the trouble to demolish you last set of errors and misrepresentations you just ignore that and move on to another one? Does it not occur to you that someone possessed of any integrity at all would own his mistakes by trying to address their rebuttals rather than just pretend they weren’t there?
Oh well…
Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being.
The “necessary being” part is dubious, but evidently yes: if there were/are creators of our universe then there were/are creators of our universe.
That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand of atheism.
If there are horses they must have hooves. That gives them unicornal attributes. Sorry, game over for that brand of a-unicornism.
Can you see anything wrong with that argument?
Anything at all?
-
This suffers from the same issue as the Prof's. Namely the warrant philosophical empiricism has in determining what is real and what isn't.
I've no idea what you're talking about.
-
Jeremy,
I've no idea what you're talking about.
Don't sweat it - nor has he.
-
I've no idea what you're talking about.
You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.
-
Vlad,
You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.
Why do you lie so much? What do you get from it? Seriously though, what?
-
You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.
I said Zeus is almost certainly not real. The Christian god, on the other hand, is a logical impossibility and the lore surrounding him is incoherent.
-
I said Zeus is almost certainly not real. The Christian god, on the other hand, is a logical impossibility and the lore surrounding him is incoherent.
Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously. I confess I'd have to do a bit of research to check his argument. Nobody challenged him though.Is that because they too know how you can be invisible and pink? Or is it because of double standards. I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.
I told you there are many things you can fully be.
There are many things you cannot fully be
So once again You can be fully God and fully human
You cannot be fully mose and fully reptile.
You can have something that is part jaguar and part Maserati.
This is because the physical must displace the physical. What then has full God got a that would displace full humanity?
If you say that a contingent creator of this universe would be god and you have done then that puts you on my side of the argument. You can be a contingent being in the full sense while being a God in the full sense.
I shall leave it to you which argument you finally plump for.
-
Vlad,
Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously. I confess I'd have to do a bit of research to check his argument. Nobody challenged him though.Is that because they too know how you can be invisible and pink? Or is it because of double standards.
To a blind man a pink carnation is invisible. It’s also pink.
QED
I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.
I told you there are many things you can fully be.
There are many things you cannot fully be
So once again You can be fully God and fully human
No – the word “fully” mean there’s no part of “you” left over to be anything else.
You cannot be fully mose and fully reptile.
“Mose”?
You can have something that is part jaguar and part Maserati.
Yes, but it wouldn’t be “fully” a Jaguar or “fully” a Maserati then would it.
This is because the physical must displace the physical.
Incoherent.
What then has full God got a that would displace full humanity?
Could you try that in English?
If you say that a contingent creator of this universe would be god…
No-one sensible says that. “Could” be is the best you could hope for, but then you’d also have to demonstrate all the other characteristics required to be divine too. You're still stuck in your "horses have hooves, so do unicorns - horses are real, therefore unicorns are too" mistake.
…and you have done then that puts you on my side of the argument.
No it doesn’t because your premise is wrong – see above.
You can be a contingent being in the full sense while being a God in the full sense.
How?
I shall leave it to you which argument you finally plump for.
I shall leave it to you actually to make an argument.
Finally.
-
Vlad,
To a blind man a pink carnation is invisible. It’s also pink.
QED
No – the word “fully” mean there’s no part of “you” left over to be anything else.
“Mose”?
Yes, but it wouldn’t be “fully” a Jaguar or “fully” a Maserati then would it.
Incoherent.
Could you try that in English?
No-one sensible says that. “Could” be is the best you could hope for, but then you’d also have to demonstrate all the other characteristics required to be divine too. You're still stuck in your "horses have hooves, so do unicorns - horses are real, therefore unicorns are too" mistake.
No it doesn’t because your premise is wrong – see above.
How?
I shall leave it to you actually to make an argument.
Finally.
Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life. The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal. Simulators are gods.
You are forced into the following positions
It is rational that the universe may have had an intelligent creator
It is not unreasonable to say that the creator/s can intervene in the universe.
It is not unreasonable to suggest their being is independent of
Of anything in our universe.
It is not unreasonable to suppose the creators can produce avatars which are fully creator and fully simulated.
Atheism doesn't brook Creators of this universe Hillside it calls them gods.
In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell. But I shall always be on hand for you to advise as I can.
-
Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously.
So did I. A pretty good argument, I thought.
I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.
It's logically contradictory. If you're fully god, there's no part of you that is not god and yet you are arguing that Jesus was also fully human.
There are also other logical contradictions. For example, it's impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent and omniscience is incompatible with free will. Then we've got the problem of squaring omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the Universe that actually exists. And we haven't even got to the incoherence of Christian doctrine yet.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life.
Why wouldn't you “understand” a lie entirely of your own making?
The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal.
So you think being supernatural, intervening in human affairs, being one rather than many, having omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence etc are all “marginal” differences between what’d be necessary for a universe creator and the god in which (up until now at least) you’ve told us you believe? Well, that’s a pretty radical redefinition of your god but if you wanted to call, say, smart aliens “gods” nonetheless that’d be a weirdness all of your own making.
Simulators are gods.
Only if by “gods’ you strip the term of most of the characteristics that before now you insisted were essential to being (your) god. Wouldn’t you feel a bit stupid though bowing and scraping to a shape-shifting lizard alien only for him to tell you that he can’t in fact do any of the other stuff you thought your god could do for you – deliver you to an afterlife for example?
You are forced into the following positions
It is rational that the universe may have had an intelligent creator
As a speculation it isn’t inherently self-contradictory, so in that sense it’s “rational” as a possibility, yes.
It is not unreasonable to say that the creator/s can intervene in the universe.
Ah, now you’re adding a non-necessary characteristic to the only necessary one. It’s also “not unreasonable” to say the creators(s) like liver and bacon for dinner of a Wednesday evening too, but there’s no reason to think that to be true either. This is just a restatement of your old burden of proof mistake – you’ve taken one necessary feature (universe creation) and you’re just shovelling on top whatever non-necessary ones happen to take your fancy. Poor thinking.
It is not unreasonable to suggest their being is independent of
Of anything in our universe.
They could be or they could not be – see above for why that is.
It is not unreasonable to suppose the creators can produce avatars which are fully creator and fully simulated.
Again, as above. You’re confusing “possible but completely unnecessary for the speculation as a premise” with “necessary for the speculation as a premise”.
Atheism doesn't brook Creators of this universe Hillside…
Atheism has no more to say about “creators of the universe” than it has to say about Morris dancing. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods – and, so far at least, you haven’t even tried to bridge the definitional gap between “creators of the universe” and “gods”.
…it calls then Gods.
This is getting even more bizarre. Atheism doesn’t call anything “gods”. Atheism is simply the finding that those who would claim there to be gods cannot produce cogent reasons or evidence to justify the claim. Surely after all these, what, thousands of times of explaining this to you you should be able to grasp it by now shouldn’t you?
In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell.
“This bombshell” as you put it is just your standard dog’s breakfast of baseless assertion, false reasoning and Dunning-Kruger level stupidity. If you want to produce an actual bombshell you need first to address and correct all of these problems.
But I shall always be on hand for you to advise as I can.
Sadly “as best you can” would for this purpose be as best as a goldfish could teach algebra to Stephen Hawking. Perhaps if you took a logic 101 class of some kind you would at least have taken the considerable step of not soiling yourself in public each time you turn up here.
Oh, and perhaps too you could try at least to do something about your pathological dishonesty. Thanks.
-
Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life.
Comical.
The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal. Simulators are gods.
Comical, ridiculous, makes talking to you about the existence of god pointless, and makes your own claim that god exists utterly meaningless.
In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell.
Beyond absurd.
-
Let's just concentrate on Mark, because in Mark's story, nothing supernatural happens. We can both agree that it describes events that could have happened. i.e. the women go to the tomb. Jesus' body is gone. A man there tells them that he rose from the dead. We all not agree on why Jesus' body was missing, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
I can think of a couple of reasons why Mark would write that the people who discovered the body missing were women:
1. he is describing events that actually happened.
2. he wants to make the narrative as plausible as possible.
In the latter case, he needs a reason for people to go to the tomb. He chooses preparing the body for burial as his reason and once he has done that, the people in question would have to be women because it would be implausible that it would be men doing that kind of work.
The criterion of embarrassment doesn't work because we don't know what the early Christians were embarrassed about. The only way we can tell is by seeing what they wrote about and assuming the what they wrote about are the things they are not embarrassed about. That includes women discovering the resurrection first.
Fair point about women discovering the tomb first. What about the more obvious example of embarrassment in Peter's betrayal, with which the later instruction by the young man at the tomb to go and tell the disciples 'and Peter' agrees? So we have a clear confirmation of the embarrassment criteria and internal consistency of the text.
There's also another point about the criterion of embarrassment. If you are fabricating a story, it adds credibility to put in some details that are embarrassing. People assume that, if you are making stuff up, you wouldn't put embarrassing details in, so to convince them you are not making it up, put embarrassing details in.
-
So did I. A pretty good argument, I thought.
It's logically contradictory. If you're fully god, there's no part of you that is not god and yet you are arguing that Jesus was also fully human.
There are also other logical contradictions. For example, it's impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent and omniscience is incompatible with free will. Then we've got the problem of squaring omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the Universe that actually exists. And we haven't even got to the incoherence of Christian doctrine yet.
-
So did I. A pretty good argument, I thought.
It's logically contradictory. If you're fully god, there's no part of you that is not god and yet you are arguing that Jesus was also fully human.
There are also other logical contradictions. For example, it's impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent and omniscience is incompatible with free will. Then we've got the problem of squaring omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the Universe that actually exists. And we haven't even got to the incoherence of Christian doctrine yet.
I've already rebutted the objection to the condition of" both... and."
Omnibenevolence is point of view stuff and imv has no place in an argument next to omniscience and omnipotence which I have previously explained are mainly philosophical constructs.
-
Vlad,
I've already rebutted the objection to the condition of" both... and."
To my recollection you’ve never rebutted anything here, nor for that matter even tried to. By all means though show me to be wrong this time and tell us where you did that.
Omnibenevolence is point of view stuff…
Like being “just” is you mean?
…and imv has no place in an argument next to omniscience and omnipotence which I have previously explained are mainly philosophical constructs.
Again you’ve never actually explained anything here but, nonetheless, if you want to tell us why labelling omniscience and omnipotence “philosophical constructs” digs you out of the hole they give you by all means give it a try.
While you’re about it by the way, you may want to consider too telling us how you propose to make the jump from the characteristics necessary for universe creators to the other characteristics also necessary for your god – the omnis, eternality, singularity, intervention in human affairs, access to an afterlife etc. You know, the problem you’ve blithely just ignored every time it’s been raised.
-
Fair point about women discovering the tomb first. What about the more obvious example of embarrassment in Peter's betrayal, with which the later instruction by the young man at the tomb to go and tell the disciples 'and Peter' agrees? So we have a clear confirmation of the embarrassment criteria and internal consistency of the text.
What evidence do you have for the early Christians being embarrassed about that?
-
I've already rebutted the objection to the condition of" both... and."
No you haven't. You did some handwaving.
Omnibenevolence is point of view stuff and imv has no place in an argument next to omniscience and omnipotence which I have previously explained are mainly philosophical constructs.
The contradiction stands If God loves us he can't possibly be omnipotent.
-
No you haven't. You did some handwaving.
That was just me waving good bye to some atheist objections to a creator of the universe and if you were to look closely you may even have seen me dabbing my eyes with a little lace handkerchief. Gordon and I discussed the ''both/and'' thing on another thread.
The contradiction stands If God loves us he can't possibly be omnipotent.
What an interesting suggestion. I see omnipotence as a bit of a philosophical construct and the other hand that he loves us he has er, omnipotently put aside his omnipotence.
I think you are rather saying that if God were omnipotent he would be forced to act in a certain way. That doesn't sound like omnipotence to me.
I think the Anselmian formula, where God is maximally potent, or maximally knowing or maximally loving, is quite interesting.
-
What evidence do you have for the early Christians being embarrassed about that?
None, but the point is that the gospel writers themselves would be unlikely to invent a story that shamed one of the apostles. I don't really understand the argument against this. I can see how potentially it could be made up to make the Gospel more authentic or as a cover up for a greater misdeed, but the 'criteria of embarrassment' isn't on its own meant to be absolute proof. As Wikipedia's entry on it says, "The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and is almost always used in concert with the other criteria" ("the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.")
-
None,
So the criterion of embarrassment collapses.
but the point is that the gospel writers themselves would be unlikely to invent a story that shamed one of the apostles.
But you just said that you have no evidence of that.
I don't really understand the argument against this. I can see how potentially it could be made up to make the Gospel more authentic or as a cover up for a greater misdeed, but the 'criteria of embarrassment' isn't on its own meant to be absolute proof. As Wikipedia's entry on it says, "The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and is almost always used in concert with the other criteria" ("the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.")
You're arguing it is evidence of the authenticity of at least one element of the gospels. We need to test your argument.
One final point: how did anybody know the story? Peter was the only one in possession of all the details.
-
So the criterion of embarrassment collapses.But you just said that you have no evidence of that.
Right, but if I were attempting to attract people to my religious leader (ie Peter), I wouldn't advertise him as being a deserter.
-
Right, but if I were attempting to attract people to my religious leader (ie Peter), I wouldn't advertise him as being a deserter.
Yes, but you are not one of the gospel writers and Peter wasn't their religious leader.
-
Right, but if I were attempting to attract people to my religious leader (ie Peter), I wouldn't advertise him as being a deserter.
Why not, it fooled you.
-
Vlad,
That was just me waving good bye to some atheist objections to a creator of the universe and if you were to look closely you may even have seen me dabbing my eyes with a little lace handkerchief.
The only waving you’re capable of here is waving at the arguments that justify atheism as they pass 30,000 odd feet above your head. Your latest effort (“universe creators = gods”) is in tatters for reasons that have been set out for you at some length, yet you’ve ignored every rebuttal and blithely carried on with the same mistakes as if nothing had happened. What do you get from this dishonesty?
Gordon and I discussed the ''both/and'' thing on another thread.
That may be so, but you didn’t actually rebut anything there either – which was your claim remember?
What an interesting suggestion. I see omnipotence as a bit of a philosophical construct and the other hand that he loves us he has er, omnipotently put aside his omnipotence.
How do you think incoherence will help you?
I think you are rather saying that if God were omnipotent he would be forced to act in a certain way. That doesn't sound like omnipotence to me.
No, he’s saying that if you want to claim the “omnis” that gives you an immediate problem because they contradict each other.
I think the Anselmian formula, where God is maximally potent, or maximally knowing or maximally loving, is quite interesting.
Why? Is “maximally” your weasel out of your “omnis” problem and, if it is, then presumably it must entail a god with limitations. Is that what you now want to claim to exist?
-
Vlad,
The only waving you’re capable of here is waving at the arguments that justify atheism as they pass 30,000 odd feet above your head. Your latest effort (“universe creators = gods”) is in tatters for reasons that have been set out for you at some length, yet you’ve ignored every rebuttal and blithely carried on with the same mistakes as if nothing had happened. What do you get from this dishonesty?
That may be so, but you didn’t actually rebut anything there either – which was your claim remember?
How do you think incoherence will help you?
No, he’s saying that if you want to claim the “omnis” that gives you an immediate problem because they contradict each other.
Why? Is “maximally” your weasel out of your “omnis” problem and, if it is, then presumably it must entail a god with limitations. Is that what you now want to claim to exist?
As far as I recall the Omnis have not been popular with theists, not because it's the atheist's little clincher but because it turns out it is a philosophers construct and by people who are either not christian on the one hand and by people who snear at philosophy like Hawking, Krauss et al but warm to it when it suits. You can sometimes spot these guys as they start doubting God because he's not entertaining them by doing the impossible. Aquinus speaks against the impossible, Anselm at his most useful talks about maximal which partly means that nothing is greater than God in terms of potential, potency, knowledge or benevolence. And that is actually arrived at by Biblical study
The God of the omnis as I have said before (There is a whole thread on it) is much, much more a philosophers construct to satisfy the need for conundrums. It is the God of the omnis, the wet dream of philosophers as Leprechauns are the wet dream for others.
-
As far as I recall the Omnis have not been popular with theists, not because it's the atheist's little clincher but because it turns out it is a philosophers construct and by people who are either not christian on the one hand and by people who snear at philosophy like Hawking, Krauss et al but warm to it when it suits. You can sometimes spot these guys as they start doubting God because he's not entertaining them by doing the impossible. Aquinus speaks against the impossible, Anselm at his most useful talks about maximal which partly means that nothing is greater than God in terms of potential, potency, knowledge or benevolence. And that is actually arrived at by Biblical study
The God of the omnis as I have said before (There is a whole thread on it) is much, much more a philosophers construct to satisfy the need for conundrums. It is the God of the omnis, the wet dream of philosophers as Leprechauns are the wet dream for others.
drivel
-
...Anselm at his most useful talks about maximal which partly means that nothing is greater than God in terms of potential, potency, knowledge or benevolence. And that is actually arrived at by Biblical study
Quite apart from anything else, I see you've yet again switched your definition of what 'god' means. ::)
-
Yes, but you are not one of the gospel writers
Fair enough.and Peter wasn't their religious leader.
Assuming Peter was an actual person and a church leader around the time of writing and that his denial of Jesus would be embarrassing for him, would a gospel writer, making up the story, include it knowing it would damage his reputation? If "yes, possibly", what about four gospel writers?
-
Vlad,
The only waving you’re capable of here is waving at the arguments that justify atheism as they pass 30,000 odd feet above your head. Your latest effort (“universe creators = gods”) is in tatters for reasons that have been set out for you at some length, yet you’ve ignored every rebuttal and blithely carried on with the same mistakes as if nothing had happened. What do you get from this dishonesty?
That may be so, but you didn’t actually rebut anything there either – which was your claim remember?
How do you think incoherence will help you?
No, he’s saying that if you want to claim the “omnis” that gives you an immediate problem because they contradict each other.
Why? Is “maximally” your weasel out of your “omnis” problem and, if it is, then presumably it must entail a god with limitations. Is that what you now want to claim to exist?
The trouble is Hillside is if you think the universe having a creator is a reasonable notion, does that make you 'another kind of atheist'
Anselm takes his cue from the bible which seems to be saying something different from the philosophers take.
Although Christianity has embraced philosophy it proceeds from any philosophy within the bible and its notions are nurtured in Palestine.
-
The trouble is Hillside is if you think the universe having a creator is a reasonable notion, does that make you 'another kind of atheist'
Anselm takes his cue from the bible which seems to be saying something different from the philosophers take.
Although Christianity has embraced philosophy it proceeds from any philosophy within the bible and its notions are nurtured in Palestine.
Wow - two versions of 'god' in the same post! Are you going for some sort of prize for total incoherence?
-
Vlad,
As far as I recall the Omnis have not been popular with theists, not because it's the atheist's little clincher but because it turns out it is a philosophers construct and by people who are either not christian on the one hand and by people who snear at philosophy like Hawking, Krauss et al but warm to it when it suits. You can sometimes spot these guys as they start doubting God because he's not entertaining them by doing the impossible. Aquinus speaks against the impossible, Anselm at his most useful talks about maximal which partly means that nothing is greater than God in terms of potential, potency, knowledge or benevolence. And that is actually arrived at by Biblical study
The God of the omnis as I have said before (There is a whole thread on it) is much, much more a philosophers construct to satisfy the need for conundrums. It is the God of the omnis, the wet dream of philosophers as Leprechauns are the wet dream for others.
All those words and not a cogent or coherent thought in any of them. Nor for that matter even an attempt to address the arguments that undid you.
For what it’s worth, if you want to resile from a god who knows everything (omniscience) to merely a god who knows more than anyone else, from a god who can do anything (omnipotence) to merely a god who can do more than anyone else, and from a god who can be anywhere (omnipresence) to merely a god who can be in more places than anyone else that’s a matter for you, but it’s pretty dramatic shift away from your previous assertions.
Presumably too in the same vein you’ll now resile from a god who’s omnibenevolent (or omnijust as you might have it) to merely a god who’s more benevolent (or just) than anyone else (but presumably can have bad hair days of his own too when the mood strikes) as that’s also a parochialism that "maximally" paints you in to. You’ll be in good company though I guess as the Sumerians, Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc also worshipped gods with limited briefs so yours’ll fit right in.
The trouble is Hillside is if you think the universe having a creator is a reasonable notion, does that make you 'another kind of atheist'
Of course not. For the reasons I’ve set out more than once now and you continue to ignore as the SU conjecture says nothing about most of the critical claims of theism (and nor therefore about atheism’s response to those claims) it has no relevance at all.
Anselm takes his cue from the bible which seems to be saying something different from the philosophers take.
No doubt it does, just as the claims of alchemists say something different from those of chemists and the claims of astrologers say something different from those of astronomers.
So what though?
Although Christianity has embraced philosophy…
That’s a big claim. What “philosophy” do you think religion has embraced exactly?
…it proceeds from any philosophy within the bible and its notions are nurtured in Palestine.
Christian (and other) theology substantially precedes philosophy rather than proceeds from it, and why should ancient “nurturing” in an obscure corner of the Middle East have more to tell us than the corpus of reasoning that’s come since?
Oh, and should I take it by the way that you have no more intention of actually addressing the recent rebuttals you’ve been given than you have ever had of addressing any of the countless rebuttals you’ve been given before that?
Funny that.
-
Vlad,
All those words and not a cogent or coherent thought in any of them. Nor for that matter even an attempt to address the arguments that undid you.
For what it’s worth, if you want to resile from a god who knows everything (omniscience) to merely a god who knows more than anyone else, from a god who can do anything (omnipotence) to merely a god who can do more than anyone else, and from a god who can be anywhere (omnipresence) to merely a god who can be in more places than anyone else that’s a matter for you, but it’s pretty dramatic shift away from your previous assertions.
Presumably too in the same vein you’ll now resile from a god who’s omnibenevolent (or omnijust as you might have it) to merely a god who’s more benevolent (or just) than anyone else (but presumably can have bad hair days of his own too when the mood strikes) as that’s also a parochialism that "maximally" paints you in to. You’ll be in good company though I guess as the Sumerians, Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc also worshipped gods with limited briefs so yours’ll fit right in.
Of course not. For the reasons I’ve set out more than once now and you continue to ignore as the SU conjecture says nothing about most of the critical claims of theism (and nor therefore about atheism’s response to those claims) it has no relevance at all.
No doubt it does, just as the claims of alchemists say something different from those of chemists and the claims of astrologers say something different from those of astronomers.
So what though?
That’s a big claim. What “philosophy” do you think religion has embraced exactly?
Christian (and other) theology substantially precedes philosophy rather than proceeds from it, and why should ancient “nurturing” in an obscure corner of the Middle East have more to tell us than the corpus of reasoning that’s come since?
Oh, and should I take it by the way that you have no more intention of actually addressing the recent rebuttals you’ve been given than you have ever had of addressing any of the countless rebuttals you’ve been given before that?
Funny that.
.
Not sure what alchemy and astrology have got to do with philosophy and religion.
Chemistry achieves the goals of alchemy more successfully and astronomy is a better way of looking at the stars. I do feel you guiding us back to today's philosophies and their superiority to anything in the past. That of course is a fallacy of modernity. Secondly modern philosophies such as empiricism, naturalism and scientism can be as cosmologist and atheist Paul Davies points out, alienating, in other words, they deprive people of any self exploration by demeaning self knowledge , in other words reducing them.
As well as being demeaning they remain philosophies.
Now onto your argument from geography.
I find The implication that there are obscure areas of the world from which nothing useful can eminate is something no sensible person should brook. It reminds me of AC Grayling who thinks that the glory that was Greco-Rome was somehow polluted by Middle eastern beliefs.
It also is reinforced by that notion from the modernity fallacy and argument from snobbery, Bronze age goatherders.
-
Vlad,
Not sure what alchemy and astrology have got to do with philosophy and religion.
Chemistry achieves the goals of alchemy more successfully and astronomy is a better way of looking at the stars.
Given that it’s been explained to you several times, why not? Theology stands in relation to philosophy as alchemy stands in relation to chemistry and astrology stands in relation to astronomy. All three are essentially guessology grounded in the best understandings available from their times that have been superseded by more reliable ways to understand the world.
I do feel you guiding us back to today's philosophies and their superiority to anything in the past.
Not to anything, no. Lots of ancient philosophy and logic stands today because it hasn’t been falsified.
That of course is a fallacy of modernity.
It’s also not true. What is true though is that many early attempts at it – "if we don’t sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god the crops will fail" etc – are demonstrably inferior to the understandings we have now. This is generally why theology fails.
Secondly…
Your firstly just collapsed, but ok…
…modern philosophies such as empiricism, naturalism and scientism can be as cosmologist and atheist Paul Davies points out, alienating, in other words, they deprive people of any self exploration by demeaning self knowledge , in other words reducing them.
As well as being demeaning they remain philosophies.
Utter bollocks.
First, truth matters. Whether or not you think logically robust thinking is “alienating” doesn’t change its robustness.
Second, as Richard Feynmann said knowing about photosynthesis doesn’t make the flowers in your garden less attractive – to the contrary it enriches and enhances our appreciation of them.
Third, your problem with that blithe “self-knowledge” is that absent any method to test whether it is knowledge at all (you know the kind of empiricism, naturalism etc you dismiss) you have no means to know whether all you actually have is baseless opinions.
Apart from all that though…
Now onto your argument from geography.
Any chance of it being less incoherent than your efforts so far?
I find The implication that there are obscure areas of the world from which nothing useful can eminate is something no sensible person should brook. It reminds me of AC Grayling who thinks that the glory that was Greco-Rome was somehow polluted by Middle eastern beliefs.
So that’s a no then. That supposed “implication” is just another of your endless straw men. It’s entirely possible that something useful could have come from anywhere. What we’re talking about here though are grandiose theological claims from an age and place from which many such claims came, as they did from ancient Egypt, from Norse Scandinavia, from the Amazon basin, from aboriginal peoples, from Polynesian islanders, from etc. Fine – do you accept all of their of gods as necessarily true therefore, or do you apply methods to test the veracity of these multiple theistic claims?
Assuming for now that you do, how then would you justify the special pleading necessary to give the faith tradition with which you happen to be most familiar a free pass?
It also is reinforced by that notion from the modernity fallacy and argument from snobbery, Bronze age goatherders.
No it isn’t.
So, now your latest effort is in tatters what are the chances of you finally telling us how you’d bridge the gap from a necessary feature for potential universe creators to the many necessary features for your god (albeit that you change position on what your god might be more often than you change your socks these days). Or do you intend to maintain your position of never answering anything here?
-
Vlad,
Given that it’s been explained to you several times, why not? Theology stands in relation to philosophy as alchemy stands in relation to chemistry and astrology stands in relation to astronomy. All three are essentially guessology grounded in the best understandings available from their times that have been superseded by more reliable ways to understand the world.
Not to anything, no. Lots of ancient philosophy and logic stands today because it hasn’t been falsified.
It’s also not true. What is true though is that many early attempts at it – "if we don’t sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god the crops will fail" etc – are demonstrably inferior to the understandings we have now. This is generally why theology fails.
Your firstly just collapsed, but ok…
Utter bollocks.
First, truth matters. Whether or not you think logically robust thinking is “alienating” doesn’t change its robustness.
Second, as Richard Feynmann said knowing about photosynthesis doesn’t make the flowers in your garden less attractive – to the contrary it enriches and enhances our appreciation of them.
Third, your problem with that blithe “self-knowledge” is that absent any method to test whether it is knowledge at all (you know the kind of empiricism, naturalism etc you dismiss) you have no means to know whether all you actually have is baseless opinions.
Apart from all that though…
Any chance of it being less incoherent than your efforts so far?
So that’s a no then. That supposed “implication” is just another of your endless straw men. It’s entirely possible that something useful could have come from anywhere. What we’re talking about here though are grandiose theological claims from an age and place from which many such claims came, as they did from ancient Egypt, from Norse Scandinavia, from the Amazon basin, from aboriginal peoples, from Polynesian islanders, from etc. Fine – do you accept all of their of gods as necessarily true therefore, or do you apply methods to test the veracity of these multiple theistic claims?
Assuming for now that you do, how then would you justify the special pleading necessary to give the faith tradition with which you happen to be most familiar a free pass?
No it isn’t.
So, now your latest effort is in tatters what are the chances of you finally telling us how you’d bridge the gap from a necessary feature for potential universe creators to the many necessary features for your god (albeit that you change position on what your god might be more often than you change your socks these days). Or do you intend to maintain your position of never answering anything here?
It's really down to you to justify the shite analogy of theology is to philosophy as alchemy is to chemistry or astrology is to astronomy. You are trying to use the halo effect of these subject. Philosophy is not a science and you seem to have no problem with it being guessology.
The idea of obscure parts of the world from which nothing useful can come is an indefensible 19th century attitude.
-
Except that the claims of witnesses to the purported resurrected Jesus seem be be late additions to the whole story. Don't forget that the gospel considered to have been written first (Mark), in its original ending had no resurrection appearances whatsoever. Merely an empty tomb.
If we compare Mark and Matthew's versions of the empty tomb, it is clear that Matthew's is more original:
Earlier, Jesus had told the disciples that he would rise from the dead. Matthew reports that the angel said, "he is risen, just as he said". Mark does not add "as he said" to "he is risen". Instead Mark adds "as he told you" to "He is going into Galilee before you, there you will see him".
Indeed Jesus had told the disciples he would go before them into Galilee, but Jesus didn't say they would see him there, only that he would rise and would go there before them.
So it looks as though Matthew has recorded the conversation in the form in which it originally took place.
Now of all the explanations (and there are many) for finding a previously filled grave suddenly empty, resurrection is just about the least plausible.
So going back to the shooting analogy. It would be the equivalent of the earliest witness testimonies perhaps confirming that there was a man with a knife, but later testimony adds some additional 'colour' for effect - for example that he was juggling with three knives before throwing each one, inch perfectly to down three policemen. The earliest claims from the gospel are deeply unimpressive as evidence for a resurrection, hence the likely need to 'sex them up' a tad.
Matthew's description of the angel is similar to the way Daniel described an angel in one of his visions. Apparently this is the first account of the incident; Mark has toned down the appearance of the angel for some reason, perhaps for the sake of Gentile converts who would not have read Daniel. Perhaps also because he is influenced by Luke, who describes the angel(s) as men.
-
Vlad,
It's really down to you to justify the shite analogy of theology is to philosophy as alchemy is to chemistry or astrology is to astronomy. You are trying to use the halo effect of these subject. Philosophy is not a science and you seem to have no problem with it being guessology.
Philosophy rests on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to the claims of theology, they fail – which is why theology gives up the struggle and relies instead on “faith”.
Astronomy and chemistry rest on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to astrology and alchemy they fail too.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
The idea of obscure parts of the world from which nothing useful can come is an indefensible 19th century attitude.
Try reading what I actually said.
Oh, and as ever I see you’ve just ignored the rebuttals you were given. Never explain, never apologise eh? What do you get from this behaviour?
-
If we compare Mark and Matthew's versions of the empty tomb, it is clear that Matthew's is more original:
It isn't clear at all Spud - you are simply making stuff up.
And whether the claimed words in either Matthew or Mark come close to what might have been said is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable. And that the version we have of this section of the gospels are from hundreds of years after the purported events makes it exceptionally unlikely that action words were captured, reported and transmitted accurately.
-
So it looks as though Matthew has recorded the conversation in the form in which it originally took place.
There is absolutely no evidence for that claim and there is no way you could plausibly provide evidence. We have a complete black hole for decades if not centuries in which any words spoken at the purported empty tomb are entirely lost to us. To make a completely unsubstantiated claim that Matthew's wording (from extant copies from about 150-250AD) are somehow an accurate record of the words actually said is just bonkers. And it goes against the whole notion of the transmission of oral histories which aren't based on accurate recording and reporting of small details (e.g. the actual words used) but providing broad stories and sayings.
-
Vlad,
Philosophy rests on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to the claims of theology, they fail – which is why theology gives up the struggle and relies instead on “faith”.
Astronomy and chemistry rest on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to astrology and alchemy they fail too.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
Try reading what I actually said.
Oh, and as ever I see you’ve just ignored the rebuttals you were given. Never explain, never apologise eh? What do you get from this behaviour?
Theology fails on logic except when considering it's age old claim that the universe has a creator. Since that is perhaps the central claim of abrahamic theism apart from prophetic revelation, it is perhaps, given SU theory which not only is premised on a creator but the model leaves room for avatars and revelation
-
Vlad,
Theology fails on logic except when considering it's age old claim that the universe has a creator.
Nope – that’s also a fail: “has” is overreaching again. All that logically can be said is “could have had” (and it’s creator or creators too by the way).
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Since that is perhaps the central claim of abrahamic theism apart from prophetic revelation, it is perhaps, given SU theory which not only is premised on a creator but the model leaves room for avatars and revelation
Still wrong – see above. Moreover, “the model” also "leaves room" for unicorns, for the Loch Ness Monster and for shape-shifting lizard aliens on Alpha Centauri. Leaving room for something that isn’t necessary for the premise (ie, universe creation) tells you nothing at all about whether other, non-necessary characteristics would also be present. This is just your eternal burden of proof mistake restated.
Again, how many times does this have to be explained to you?
(Oh, and still no attempt to address your previous screw ups I see. Oh well – ‘twas ever thus I guess.)
-
It isn't clear at all Spud - you are simply making stuff up.
No I'm not, I read it somewhere else.
And whether the claimed words in either Matthew or Mark come close to what might have been said is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable.
Ok then, Matthew's version is more consistent with the rest of the story. I've already given another example of this in the discussion about ceremonial defilement (Mt 15/Mk 7). If it doesn't tell us anything about which is primary, what does it tell us?
And that the version we have of this section of the gospels are from hundreds of years after the purported events makes it exceptionally unlikely that action words were captured, reported and transmitted accurately.
As the text stands though, Matthew is primary so we can't say that Matthew embellished Mark's account.
-
No I'm not, I read it somewhere else.
Then they are making stuff up and you are gullibly simply going along with it.
Ok then, Matthew's version is more consistent with the rest of the story.
But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.
-
If we compare Mark and Matthew's versions of the empty tomb, it is clear that Matthew's is more original:
No it isn't.
Earlier, Jesus had told the disciples that he would rise from the dead. Matthew reports that the angel said, "he is risen, just as he said". Mark does not add "as he said" to "he is risen". Instead Mark adds "as he told you" to "He is going into Galilee before you, there you will see him".
Indeed Jesus had told the disciples he would go before them into Galilee, but Jesus didn't say they would see him there, only that he would rise and would go there before them.
So it looks as though Matthew has recorded the conversation in the form in which it originally took place.
Or Matthew fixed up issues he thought were in Mark.
Matthew's description of the angel is similar to the way Daniel described an angel in one of his visions.
So? If I describe a blast ended skrewt in the same way as JK Rowling, it doesn't make them real, it only means I've read the Harry Potter books.
Apparently this is the first account of the incident; Mark has toned down the appearance of the angel for some reason,
No, Matthew has exaggerated the appearance for some reason, but then people often exaggerate stories with the retelling.
-
Then they are making stuff up and you are gullibly simply going along with it.
But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.
If Matthew was writing the first account, why wouldn't he have in mind Jesus' repeated prediction of his resurrection, thus writing "he has risen, as he said"? I'd have thought that was quite possible and not the result of needing to correct Mark.
It would be good if you could provide an example of editing tending to smooth out inconsistencies? In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.
-
It would be good if you could provide an example of editing tending to smooth out inconsistencies? In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.
How do you know it wasn't, in full or in part, made up?
-
In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.
The story of the empty tomb might be made up, or it might not. There is no way of knowing as, from a historical perspective, the evidence for the empty tomb story is as non-existent as any other myth.
But even if it were true there are many clearly plausible explanations for why an occupied tomb might be later found empty. And those plausible explanations do not include 'dead man suddenly comes alive again'.
-
But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.
Okay, but I'm sure you'll agree that if one account is fully coherent and the other is less so, that doesn't automatically mean the more coherent one has edited the less coherent one? I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Matthew originated the angel's comment without having seen Mark. If however you assume from the start the angel is made up then you are more likely to conclude that Matthew has also moved "as he said" in Mark to its more appropriate context. This would be confirmation bias.
-
Vlad,
Nope – that’s also a fail: “has” is overreaching again. All that logically can be said is “could have had” (and it’s creator or creators too by the way).
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Still wrong – see above. Moreover, “the model” also "leaves room" for unicorns, for the Loch Ness Monster and for shape-shifting lizard aliens on Alpha Centauri. Leaving room for something that isn’t necessary for the premise (ie, universe creation) tells you nothing at all about whether other, non-necessary characteristics would also be present. This is just your eternal burden of proof mistake restated.
Again, how many times does this have to be explained to you?
(Oh, and still no attempt to address your previous screw ups I see. Oh well – ‘twas ever thus I guess.)
Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?
Accepting a universal creator is a reasonable idea certainly isn't one of those principles.
principles.
The creation of this universe is a divine ability and certainly if true or reasonable then you cannot as far as this universe say that that divine ability is unnecessary.
You are disqualified from the race before you are off the blocks.
Naturalism of the type you propose isn't even proven in this universe. ALL WE CAN SAY is we dont know what universe or rules are necessary for creating the universe, so any appeal to any supposed superiority of the naturalistic philosophy outside and independent of nature is too much of a presumption.
Having endorsed SU as reasonable do you now wish to walk that endorsement back.
As far as unicorns and Leprechauns are concerned I would put money on it that we can say they are contingent on their existence ultimately on the creator.
It might be wise to check with NdGT whether SU is an argument for Leprechauns although he is obviously not of your intellectual standing.
-
Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?
Just how many theistic principles does a theist have to ignore and still technically be a theist?
You cannot be a believer in both god as any universe simulator(s) and god as Feser's base of hierarchy. They are entirely different concepts.
Until you stop this mindless drivel about SU being about god(s) and simulators being 'divine' or give up entirely on most of the characteristics of the god of monotheistic religions, you have no consistent view of something you claim to believe in. Not only does that make you look stupid, it makes all talk with you about the existence of god utterly pointless.
Get a grip.
Perhaps it's also worth reminding you that you never did answer the question about how much of a universe needs to be simulated, and in what detail, for the simulators to be called 'gods' in your bizarre and ever-changing belief system. The argument for SU would suggest that the simulators would have to build up to a full simulation (whatever that would mean), so would it count if just you were being simulated in full detail, and everything else in just enough detail to fool you into thinking you're in a universe? What about just a handful of people? Just the Earth? Just the solar system? If the point is to study ancestor simulations (which the argument talks about) there really wouldn't be much point in simulating much more than the solar system in any great detail. Would they still be gods, at a time of day when you happen to be think god means simulator?
-
Today's brain bender:
If Matthew was writing the first account, why wouldn't he have in mind Jesus' repeated prediction of his resurrection, thus writing "he has risen, as he said"? I'd have thought that was quite possible and not the result of needing to correct Mark.
Let's suppose Matthew and Luke are using Mark. They come to Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" and re-read the part of the last supper where Jesus says that after he has risen, he will go ahead of the disciples into Galilee. They notice that Jesus is not recorded as saying, "there you will see me". So Mt decides to change Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" to "There you will see him. Behold, I have told you". Lk omits the angel's instruction to tell the disciples.
It is questionable whether Mt and Lk would notice this minor inaccuracy in Mk. It is incredible that they realise that there happens to be a perfect context for "as he said" - after "he has risen". So they both rearrange Mk's two phrases, "he has risen. He is not here". Mt inserts "as he said" after, "he has risen", and Lk provides a quote: "...he has risen. Remember how he told you while he was still with you in Galilee: the Son of man must...be raised again"
Alternatively, Matthew and Luke writing before Mark, record the angel's actual words concerning the meeting in Galilee. Mark, using both Mt and Lk, has "as he said" in the back of his mind from reading Mt, and having omitted it from its original context in Mt, he inserts it to a less appropriate context, after "there you will see him" instead of Mt's "Behold, I have told you".
-
Vlad,
Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?
This atheist has taken on none so far.
Accepting a universal creator is a reasonable idea certainly isn't one of those principles.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. Yet again, all I’ve accepted is that the possibility (of a creator/simulator or creators/simulators of the universe we observe) is reasonable inasmuch only as there’s nothing inherently contradictory about it.
The creation of this universe is a divine ability…
How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?
…and certainly if true or reasonable then you cannot as far as this universe say that that divine ability is unnecessary.
Or true. For all you know our observable universe could be a simulation by an entirely non-divine species that itself inhabits a universe simulated by another non-divine species, that in turn etc through infinite regress. If you seriously want to jump from what’d be necessary for a simulator (ie, the ability to simulate) to a simulator that's also divine you have a huge amount of work ahead of you to define "divine" and to make a case for it. Just asserting it to be so is idiotic.
You are disqualified from the race before you are off the blocks.
Such a pity you have no concept of irony.
Naturalism of the type you propose isn't even proven in this universe.
Depends what you means by “proven”, but it certainly provides an understanding of the universe that’s consistent, predictable, workable etc – as opposed to “faith” that provides, well, what exactly?
ALL WE CAN SAY is we dont know what universe or rules are necessary for creating the universe, so any appeal to any supposed superiority of the naturalistic philosophy outside and independent of nature is too much of a presumption.
This is just gibberish. What’s actually being said is that if you want to jump straight to an assertion of supernaturalism (whatever that would mean) then the burden of proof is all yours to make a case for it. Just asserting “divine” doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.
Having endorsed SU as reasonable do you now wish to walk that endorsement back.
Why would I want to “walk back” your straw man? Try to understand here the difference between the possible and the probable – it would help you not to get in such a mess if you could do that much at least.
As far as unicorns and Leprechauns are concerned I would put money on it that we can say they are contingent on their existence ultimately on the creator.
Why? And once more I see you’ve failed to grasp the point of these analogies. Yet again: if you want to try an argument for there being “the creator” and the same argument also justifies unicorns and leprechauns, then either all three are true or it’s a bad argument. Surely even you can grasp this simple point by mow can’t you? Can’t you?
It might be wise to check with NdGT whether SU is an argument for Leprechauns although he is obviously not of your intellectual standing.
Gibberish.
Oh, and after once again having had your arse handed to you in a sling I see you’ve failed even to try to address any of the arguments that undid you.
Why is that?
-
... record the angel's actual words concerning the meeting in Galilee.
Spud - hate to break it to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.
-
Vlad,
This atheist has taken on none so far.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. Yet again, all I’ve accepted is that the possibility (of a creator/simulator or creators/simulators of the universe we observe) is reasonable inasmuch only as there’s nothing inherently contradictory about it.
How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?
Or true. For all you know our observable universe could be a simulation by an entirely non-divine species that itself inhabits a universe simulated by another non-divine species, that in turn etc through infinite regress. If you seriously want to jump from what’s be necessary for a simulator (ie, the ability to simulate) to a simulator that's divine you have a huge amount of work ahead of you to define your terms and to make a case for it. Just asserting it to be so is idiotic.
Such a pity you have no concept of irony.
Depends what you means by “proven”, but it certainly provides an understanding of the universe that’s consistent, predictable, workable etc – as opposed to “faith” that provides, well, what exactly?
This is just gibberish. What’s actually being said is that if you want to jump straight to an assertion of supernaturalism (whatever that would even mean) then the burden of proof is all yours to make a case for it. Just asserting “divine” doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.
Why would I want to “walk back” your straw man? Try to understand here the difference between the possible and the probable – it would help you not to get in such a mess if you could do that much at least.
Why? And once more I see you’ve failed to grasp the point of these analogies. Yet again: if you want to try an argument for there being “the creator” and the same argument also justifies unicorns and leprechauns, than either all three are true or it’s a bad argument. Surely even you can grasp this simple point by mow can’t you? Can’t you?
Gibberish.
Oh, and after once again having had your arse handed to you in a sling I see you’ve failed even to try to address any of the arguments that undid you.
Why is that?
Back for more, I see.
A creator of the universe IS supernatural, this is because they/it are not dependent for existence on the universe, are impervious to naturalistic methods of investigation, are able to reveal truths about themselves, are able to make avatars of themselves/itself in this universe. And those are the Central beliefs of Christianity. Divinity in your scheme is an arbitrary term certainly not a word for the attributes which confirm divine status.
You seem to be taking an Ockhams razor approach to clutch onto your atheism or at least your brand of atheism.
Previously it was creators you thought you had demonstrated were unnecessary, now you or at least Bostrom, Greene and NdGT believe the notion that the universe is created is reasonable. THIS IS contradictory to your use of Ockhams Razor to refute God. Where you have the creator as the unnecessary or '' beyond necessary entity.'' By accepting that a creator is reasonable YOU CONTRADICT yourself.
Have you heard of the Japanese soldier that defended his position against the americans from 1945 to 1975? You have a lot in common.
-
Vlad,
Back for more, I see.
A creator of the universe IS supernatural...
And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe whose natural laws and forces apply to us wouldn’t be just as subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?
… this is because they are not dependent for existence on the universe, are impervious to naturalistic methods of investigation, are able to reveal truths about themselves, are able to make avatars of themselves in this universe.
None of which baseless assertions you can support with arguments. Why would you just assume any of these things to be true?
And those are the Central beliefs of Christianity
No doubt.
You seem to be taking an Ockhams razor approach to clutch onto your atheism or at least your brand of atheism.
You’ve revealed before now that you don’t understand Occam’s razor, but by all means to try show its relevance here.
Previously it was creators you thought you had demonstrated were unnecessary,…
Lying again won’t help you here. I make no comment on whether creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we observe are necessary – I merely question your positive assertion that it/they are. This is just your continuing burden of proof mistake again.
…now you or at least Bostrom, Greene and NdGT believe the notion of the universe is created is reasonable.
FFS! “Reasonable” (ie, not inherently contradictory) and “reasoned” (ie substantiated by argument) are fundamentally different positions. If you could try at least to grasp why this is perhaps you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself here again.
THIS IS contradictory to your use of Ockhams Razor to refute God. Where you have the creator as the unnecessary or '' beyond necessary entity.'' By accepting that a creator is reasonable YOU CONTRADICT yourself.
“THIS” is just another of your straw men, for the reasons I’ve just set out (and that you will ignore as you ignore everything else that undoes you).
Have you heard of the Japanese soldier that defended his position against the americans from 1945 to 1975? You have a lot in common.
That may or may not be the case, but until and unless you finally manage to engage with and rebut the arguments that justify my atheism you have no way of knowing that. I set out these arguments perfectly plainly over and over again – if you really think them to be wrong, why not finally tell us why rather than ignore or misrepresent them?
What are you so afraid of?
(And you should try to find out what Occam’s razor actually entails too by the way.)
-
Vlad,
And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we inhabit wouldn’t be just subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?
None of which baseless assertions you can support with arguments. Why would you just assume any of these things to be true?
No doubt.
You’ve revealed before now that you don’t understand Occam’s razor, but by all means to try show its relevance here.
Lying again won’t help you here. I make no comment on whether creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we observe are necessary – I merely question your positive assertion that it/they are. This is just your continuing burden of proof mistake again.
FFS! “Reasonable” (ie, not inherently contradictory) and “reasoned” (ie substantiated by argument) are fundamentally different positions. If you could try at least to grasp why this is perhaps you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself here again.
“THIS” is just another of your straw men, for the reasons I’ve just set out (and that you will ignore as you ignore everything else that undoes you).
That may or may not be the case, but until and unless you finally manage to engage with and rebut the arguments that justify my atheism you have no way of knowing that. I set out these arguments perfectly plainly over and over again – if you really think them to be wrong, why not finally tell us why rather than ignore or misrepresent them?
What are you so afraid of?
(And you should try to find out what Occam’s razor actually entails too by the way.)
I get it Hillside.''It's just a flesh wound'' ;)
-
Vlad,
I get it Hillside.''It's just a flesh wound'' ;)
No you don't - it's much worse than that: you're actually dead in the water (for the reasons I consistently set out and you consistently either misrepresent or ignore).
-
Vlad,
And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe whose natural laws and forces apply to us wouldn’t be just as subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?
Well any God inhabits or may actually be the universe it inhabits. It would be subject to it's own laws which effectively are itself and it's own forces which effectively are itself.
And before you POO POO this , The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.
Bad luck old boy.
-
Vlad,
Well any God inhabits or may actually be the universe it inhabits…
So what happened to your previous claim of a god “outside time and space” then?
It would be subject to it's own laws which effectively are itself and it's own forces which effectively are itself.
So now you’re claiming a god subject to its laws? How would that work for a god that can do supposedly do anything it wants to do?
Do you have any sense at all of how all over the place you are here?
Anything?
And before you POO POO this…
Too late.
The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.
No it isn’t. See whether you can work out for yourself where you’ve gone wrong again as every time I correct you you just ignore or misrepresent the correction.
Bad luck old boy.
Irony: “a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what on the surface appears to be the case or to be expected differs radically from what is actually the case.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
-
Vlad,
So what happened to your previous claim of a god “outside time and space” then?
A creator of the universe is out of time and space. That comes from not being dependent for one's existence on the universe you create.
-
... or may actually be the universe it inhabits.
...
And before you POO POO this , The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.
Hmm - so your 'killer' argument seems to be that some people (and not just atheists) consider that the universe may be ... err ... the universe. Well glad we've cleared that one up.
-
Vlad,
So now you’re claiming a god subject to its laws? How would that work for a god that can do supposedly do anything it wants to do?
Not all gods can do anything they want to. They sometimes have to obey more superior gods of their pantheon.
That and the example of Zeus being Cronus son and Cronus being the son of Uranus(and therefore brother to your posts)supports the divinity of any extra universal creator you can come out with.
Or God could be his own universe subject to his own rules, occupying the whole of whatever ''space'' analogue you can come up with.
Have a nice day.
-
Not all gods can do anything they want to. They sometimes have to obey more superior gods of their pantheon.
That and the example of Zeus being Cronus son and Cronus being the son of Uranus(and therefore brother to your posts)supports the divinity of any extra universal creator you can come out with.
Or God could be his own universe subject to his own rules, occupying the whole of whatever ''space'' analogue you can come up with.
Have a nice day.
You really have no idea how absurd you're being, have you?
There's no point whatsoever in talking about the existence of a god or gods unless we're going to talk about a specific concept. Just changing the definition from post to post (or even using more than one in a single post) in some daft attempt to try to get atheists to agree with some aspects of some of the attributes of some of the thousands of god concepts, is just pathetic and desperate.
-
Spud - hate to break it to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.
Maybe not now. Not at this time of year.
-
Vlad,
A creator of the universe is out of time and space. That comes from not being dependent for one's existence on the universe you create.
Leaving aside for now the dubiousness of the latter assertion, if you’re also asserting that a god would be out of the time and space it had created how would you propose it to be also therefore out of the time and space (or whatever other natural properties there might be) of a universe from which it may have come? You know, the "divine" as opposed to merely smart aliens bit. As so often before, you’re still lost in the Fletcher’s tunnel paradox here.
Vlad (Reply 420):
Well any God inhabits or may actually be the universe it inhabits. It would be subject to it's own laws…
Also Vlad (just four posts later):
Not all gods can do anything they want to….
It would help if you could not post directly contradictory claims like this. Which are you asserting now – gods subject to laws, or some at least that can do anything they want to?
They sometimes have to obey more superior gods of their pantheon.
So now you’re a pantheist? Given the endlessly shape-shifting versions of (the previously only one) god you’ve hitherto asserted here, I suppose nothing of yours should surprise me now. Still, even for you pantheism is quite a leap isn’t it?
Oh, and you’re making a category error here: laws of the human (and presumably godly) kind (thou shalt not… etc) can be broken; natural laws though (like those of physics) generally cannot.
That and the example of Zeus being Cronus son and Cronus being the son of Uranus(and therefore brother to your posts)supports the divinity of any extra universal creator you can come out with.
You do realise that these tales are myths right?
Perhaps you should give your head a wobble before you try posting again.
Or God could be his own universe subject to his own rules, occupying the whole of whatever ''space'' analogue you can come up with.
Or leprechauns could frolic with unicorns except for Wednesday half-day closing. When you’re off int magic land like this, or anything…
Have a nice day.
Have an honest one. Oh, wait, it’s you… sorry, my bad.
-
Vlad,
Or leprechauns could frolic with unicorns except for Wednesday half-day closing. When you’re off int magic land like this, or anything…
He's lost it.
Hillside You have stated that the divine characteristics are reasonable propositions. Your beef then must be personally with God so now might be a good time to cut the middle man (me) and now take God himself on mano y Deo on the premise that it's just possible he may exist. You can do this in the privacy of your own life but it's not a god idea for me to be around so I think I'll only answer other peoples posts.
I don't think your replies are for my benefit but to keep your wee acolytes in order with new atheist wankfodder anyway.
Goodnight and Good luck.
-
Vlad,
He's lost it.
No, he’s trying (and it seems failing) to explain to you the difference between possible and probable.
Hillside You have stated that the divine characteristics are reasonable propositions.
Stop lying. What I’ve actually “stated” is that you have no coherent grounds to call the one necessary characteristic of a possible universe creator (ie, the ability to create a universe) “divine” at all.
Your beef then must be personally with God…
Hysterical. No, my “beef” (assuming I have one) is with your endless fucking lying.
…so now might be a good time to cut the middle man (me) and now take God himself on mano y Deo on the premise that it's just possible he may exist.
Fine – for that to happen though you need first to tell us what you mean by “god” in a way that doesn’t change entirely each time you pronounce on it, and then to demonstrate its existence at all without collapsing immediately into fallacy, evasion or dishonesty. You know, the things you’ve never been able to do here no matter how many times you’ve been asked.
You can do this in the privacy of your own life but it's not a god idea for me to be around so I think I'll only answer other peoples posts.
As you’ve never actually answered anything in mine how will I tell the difference?
I don't think your replies are for my benefit but to keep your wee acolytes in order.
I don’t have acolytes.
Goodnight and Good luck.
Luck I don’t need. Absent reason or evidence to justify your claims and assertions though, you on the other hand…
-
Vlad,
No, he’s trying (and it seems failing) to explain to you the difference between possible and probable.
Stop lying. What I’ve actually “stated” is that you have no coherent grounds to call the one necessary characteristic of a possible universe creator (ie, the ability to create a universe) “divine” at all.
Hysterical. No, my “beef” (assuming I have one) is with your endless fucking lying.
Fine – for that to happen though you need first to tell us what you mean by “god” in a way that doesn’t change entirely each time you pronounce on it, and then to demonstrate its existence at all without collapsing immediately into fallacy, evasion or dishonesty. You know, the things you’ve never been able to do here no matter how many times you’ve been asked.
As you’ve never actually answered anything in mine how will I tell the difference?
I don’t have acolytes.
Luck I don’t need. Absent reason or evidence to justify your claims and assertions though, you on the other hand…
Smart aliens there may be.....in this universe.
But we are talking about another universe.
God is smart. He is also alien and any argument that yes The creator is independent for existence from this universe, can intervene up to and including being an avatar but it cant be divine is special pleading.
A more sensible approach was Dawkins public reaction to the possibility that the god of abrahamic theism was a candidate.
He stated he wouldn't worship it. He did not come out with the defensive hysterics you did. He commented on his reaction.
There is no way of excluding God from candidacy.
Just as there is no way of matching up the elements and properties of the divine and what the creators of this universe and then rejecting either from either category.
Stop gaslighting.
-
Vlad,
You’ve packed a lot of stupid into one post here. For what it’s worth though:
Smart aliens there may be.....in this universe.
Oh dear. There are two speculations here:
1. Smart aliens in another universe that created this one; or
2. Smart aliens in this universe with the ability to simulate the universe “we” seem to occupy.
But we are talking about another universe.
That’s one speculation, yes – the one with smart aliens in it capable of creating our universe.
God is smart.
Fallacy of reification and baseless assertion.
He is also alien…
“God is an alien” eh? Well, that’s new. As “alien” in this context means a being from another world presumably you’ve now abandoned your previous claims of immateriality, omnipresence etc?
…and any argument that yes The creator is independent for existence from this universe, can intervene up to and including being an avatar but it cant be divine is special pleading.
And another straw man. You really, really struggle don’t you with the basic concept of burden of proof. No-one says that conceptually at least a “creator” couldn’t do any of these things. What’s actually being said is that the act of universe creation would neither require nor imply any of them. The only “special pleading" here is you piling on all manner of additional features with no rationale for any of them.
A more sensible approach was Dawkins public reaction to the possibility that the god of abrahamic theism was a candidate.
Anything else with the ability to create (or simulate) a universe would equally be a candidate too though.
He stated he wouldn't worship it. He did not come out with the defensive hysterics you did. He commented on his reaction.
Posting arguments you can’t or won’t address isn’t “hysterics”, and RD’s reaction to a supposed god is entirely irrelevant in any case – I wouldn’t worship it either.
There is no way of excluding God from candidacy.
No-one says otherwise. It’s been a while since you tried the negative proof fallacy though.
There’s no way to exclude an orbiting teapot either. So?
Just as there is no way of matching up the elements and properties of the divine and what the creators of this universe and then rejecting either from either category.
Now you’ve collapsed into incoherence again.
Look, I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring the explanation but just for once will you at least try to understand it? I know you struggle with the idea of an analogy (“but leprechauns are little green men” etc) but again, just this once try to think will you?
OK, imagine for now that we had no evidence for the existence of horses.
Still with me? OK.
Now imagine that someone speculated on the possibility of horses, and said “if we ever found hoof prints in the sand that would be evidence for horses”.
All good so far? Hanging in there still? Right…
What you’re doing in response is asserting unicorns to exist. Your mistakes here are:
1. To jump straight from a possibility to a probability (fallacy of reification); and
2. To adduce hoof prints as requiring not only creatures with the properties necessary to leave hoof prints (ie, horses), but also with properties not necessary to leave hoof prints – horn, wings, power to heal etc (ie, unicorns).
When this is explained to you your response is variously but “unicorns are horses”, “unicorns are the best candidate for leaving hoof prints”, “there’s no way of excluding unicorns from candidacy” etc.
Now can you see the problem with this?
Stop gaslighting.
Start thinking.
-
Vlad,
You’ve packed a lot of stupid into one post here. For what it’s worth though:
Oh dear. There are two speculations here:
1. Smart aliens in another universe that created this one; or
2. Smart aliens in this universe with the ability to simulate the universe “we” seem to occupy.
That’s one speculation, yes – the one with smart aliens in it capable of creating our universe.
Fallacy of reification and baseless assertion.
“God is an alien” eh? Well, that’s new. As “alien” in this context means a being from another world presumably you’ve now abandoned your previous claims of immateriality, omnipresence etc?
And another straw man. You really, really struggle don’t you with the basic concept of burden of proof. No-one says that conceptually at least a “creator” couldn’t do any of these things. What’s actually being said is that the act of universe creation would neither require nor imply any of them. The only “special pleading" here is you piling on all manner of additional features with no rationale for any of them.
Anything else with the ability to create (or simulate) a universe would equally be a candidate too though.
Posting arguments you can’t or won’t address isn’t “hysterics”, and RD’s reaction to a supposed god is entirely irrelevant in any case – I wouldn’t worship it either.
No-one says otherwise. It’s been a while since you tried the negative proof fallacy though.
There’s no way to exclude an orbiting teapot either. So?
Now you’ve collapsed into incoherence again.
Look, I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring the explanation but just for once will you at least try to understand it? I know you struggle with the idea of an analogy (“but leprechauns are little green men” etc) but again, just this once try to think will you?
OK, imagine for now that we had no evidence for the existence of horses.
Still with me? OK.
Now imagine that someone speculated on the possibility of horses, and said “if we ever found hoof prints in the sand that would be evidence for horses”.
All good so far? Hanging in there still? Right…
What you’re doing in response is asserting unicorns to exist. Your mistakes here are:
1. To jump straight from a possibility to a probability (fallacy of reification); and
2. To adduce hoof prints as requiring not only creatures with the properties necessary to leave hoof prints (ie, horses), but also with properties not necessary to leave hoof prints – horn, wings, power to heal etc (ie, unicorns).
When this is explained to you your response is variously but “unicorns are horses”, “unicorns are the best candidate for leaving hoof prints”, “there’s no way of excluding unicorns from candidacy” etc.
Now can you see the problem with this?
Start thinking.
It's obvious that the idea of Smart aliens has distracted you from the establishment that universe creation, intervention in that universe, ability to avatar are centuries old theological ideas and main markers of Divinity. These guys are already divine before you've even got your trousers on.
-
But we are talking about another universe.
God is smart. He is also alien and any argument that yes The creator is independent for existence from this universe, can intervene up to and including being an avatar but it cant be divine is special pleading.
Drivel. You are confusing necessity and sufficiency (again). So long as you keep changing your definition of god like this, your posts about it are just meaningless and comical babble.
A more sensible approach was Dawkins public reaction to the possibility that the god of abrahamic theism was a candidate.
He stated he wouldn't worship it. He did not come out with the defensive hysterics you did. He commented on his reaction.
Which is a reasonable response to the idea that the Abrahamic god might exist, it's just your desperate and comical attempts to conflate that with the simulation conjecture that so absurd.
There is no way of excluding God from candidacy.
Yes there is: the argument for SU (such as it is) is explicitly naturalistic.
Just as there is no way of matching up the elements and properties of the divine and what the creators of this universe and then rejecting either from either category.
You just don't do logic, do you? The fact that one thing has some of the characteristic of another, does not mean that an argument for one is an argument for the other.
And you still haven't answered the question (#412 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18536.msg831779#msg831779)) about how much of a universe needs to be simulated and in what detail for you to designate the simulators as gods or 'divine' in your world of nonsense.
Anyway, do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's quite funny watching you systematically dismantling what little credibility your claims about god ever had.
-
Drivel. You are confusing necessity and sufficiency (again). So long as you keep changing your definition of god like this, your posts about it are just meaningless and comical babble.
Which is a reasonable response to the idea that the Abrahamic god might exist, it's just your desperate and comical attempts to conflate that with the simulation conjecture that so absurd.
Yes there is: the argument for SU (such as it is) is explicitly naturalistic.
You just don't do logic, do you? The fact that one thing has some of the characteristic of another, does not mean that an argument for one is an argument for the other.
And you still haven't answered the question (#412 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18536.msg831779#msg831779)) about how much of a universe needs to be simulated and in what detail for you to designate the simulators as gods or 'divine' in your world of nonsense.
Anyway, do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's quite funny watching you systematically dismantling what little credibility your claims about god ever had.
Waffle.
-
Waffle.
No answers, then. As I said, do carry on systematically dismantling your own claims - it's really rather funny.
-
Vlad,
It's obvious that the idea of Smart aliens has distracted you from the establishment that universe creation, intervention in that universe, ability to avatar are centuries old theological ideas and main markers of Divinity. These guys are already divine before you've even got your trousers on.
You just couldn't do it could you. I went to the trouble of explaining to you why this is wrongheaded thinking and you just ignored every argument in favour of repeating exactly the same mistake.
Why though? What do you get from your egregious mindlessness?
-
Drivel. You are confusing necessity and sufficiency (again). So long as you keep changing your definition of god like this, your posts about it are just meaningless and comical babble.
Which is a reasonable response to the idea that the Abrahamic god might exist, it's just your desperate and comical attempts to conflate that with the simulation conjecture that so absurd.
Yes there is: the argument for SU (such as it is) is explicitly naturalistic.
No it isn't. It cannot be because that constitutes an act of special pleading. PZ Myers points out that this is explicitly not naturalistic but intelligent design.
And you still haven't answered the question (#412 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18536.msg831779#msg831779)) about how much of a universe needs to be simulated and in what detail for you to designate the simulators as gods or 'divine' in your world of nonsense.
Anyway, do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's quite funny watching you systematically dismantling what little credibility your claims about god ever had.
Where your argument fails is the denial that the claims implicit in SU theory are the same that theology has been making for centuries.
Namely a Creator of the universe which is not dependent on the universe it creates for it's existence, A creator who can intervene in it's creation, a creator that can produce an avatar of itself in the universe it creates.
There is no logic that gets you round that. If you think there is an aspect of divinity that is critical to being divine which is missing here you are to declare it.
Now acknowledging these as reasonable means it is unreasonable and special pleading to not allow these abilities in something you do not like.
You accept that the idea of creation is reasonable thus repudiating agreement that the Universe necessarily just IS.
You accept the idea that this creator may be baseline reality.
An diminunition of the divine state of the creator/s is mere anthropomorphisation.
-
NTtS,
I do sometimes wonder how an actual Christian would respond if s/he read Vlad's efforts here - presumably with head in hands despair at the damage he does to whatever credibility their faith might have.
-
No it isn't.
Look at the fucking argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#The_simulation_argument). It's all about 'posthuman' civilisations and based on an extrapolation of what we can do now. You cannot use that to justify any kind of god remotely like the various versions of monotheistic god. This is so simple, even you should be able to grasp it.
It cannot be because that constitutes an act of special pleading.
We can clearly add 'special pleading' to the things you know nothing about.
Where your argument fails is the denial that the claims implicit in SU theory are the same that theology has been making for centuries.
Namely a Creator of the universe which is not dependent on the universe it creates for it's existence, A creator who can intervene in it's creation, a creator that can produce an avatar of itself in the universe it creates.
There is no logic that gets you round that. If you think there is an aspect of divinity that is critical to being divine which is missing here you are to declare it.
I don't need logic to get round it because there isn't any logic to get round. You're just confusing necessity with sufficiency. A table is not a lion just because they both have four legs.
-
You accept that the idea of creation is reasonable thus repudiating agreement that the Universe necessarily just IS.
I don't, and even if I did, this is just another epic failure to understand logic. It's perfectly possible to find different speculative conjectures to be reasonable. I actually regard a fairly large number of different hypotheses to be basically reasonable - see my Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0) thread.
And you still haven't answered the question about partial simulations.
-
I don't, and even if I did, this is just another epic failure to understand logic. It's perfectly possible to find different speculative conjectures to be reasonable. I actually regard a fairly large number of different hypotheses to be basically reasonable - see my Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0) thread.
And you still haven't answered the question about partial simulations.
The Neil De Grasse Tyson version of SU theory is that this universe we are in is the simulation.
So is this universe partial?
I'm tempted to think ''how would we know?''.
-
So is this universe partial?
I'm tempted to think ''how would we know?''.
Do keep up Vlad. I asked to what extent does the simulation need to be a complete universe for its simulator(s) to be god(s) in your barking mad world of confusion?
-
Vlad,
I'm tempted to think...
Well, that'd be a start at least.
-
Today's brain bender:
Let's suppose Matthew and Luke are using Mark. They come to Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" and re-read the part of the last supper where Jesus says that after he has risen, he will go ahead of the disciples into Galilee. They notice that Jesus is not recorded as saying, "there you will see me". So Mt decides to change Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" to "There you will see him. Behold, I have told you". Lk omits the angel's instruction to tell the disciples.
It is questionable whether Mt and Lk would notice this minor inaccuracy in Mk. It is incredible that they realise that there happens to be a perfect context for "as he said" - after "he has risen". So they both rearrange Mk's two phrases, "he has risen. He is not here". Mt inserts "as he said" after, "he has risen", and Lk provides a quote: "...he has risen. Remember how he told you while he was still with you in Galilee: the Son of man must...be raised again"
Seems perfectly reasonable to me that they would try to provide extra context. Of course, Luke actually completely changes the context, saying that Jesus told them he would rise while in Galilee (in the past) whereas Matthew and Mark the man/angel says Jesus will meet them in Galilee.
The angel in Matthew is also lying. He says they will see Jesus in Galilee but they actually bump into him about five minutes later in Jerusalem.
Alternatively, Matthew and Luke writing before Mark, record the angel's actual words concerning the meeting in Galilee. Mark, using both Mt and Lk, has "as he said" in the back of his mind from reading Mt, and having omitted it from its original context in Mt, he inserts it to a less appropriate context, after "there you will see him" instead of Mt's "Behold, I have told you".
Here you are arguing that Mark takes two accounts and produces something slightly less coherent than either. It doesn't seem any more likely than Matthew and Luke trying to fix up Mark's account.
-
Seems perfectly reasonable to me that they would try to provide extra context.
I think this idea makes sense for a fictitious account, but if it was non-fictional the reader would want to know which of the two contexts for the statement was authentic, since they are contradictory, rather than one being "extra".
Of course, Luke actually completely changes the context, saying that Jesus told them he would rise while in Galilee (in the past) whereas in Matthew and Mark the man/angel says Jesus will meet them in Galilee.
That could also arise if Matthew was one of Luke's sources. Luke could have decided to mention Galilee (as it's in his source), but dismiss it before focusing his own account on Jesus' appearances in Jerusalem? Apparently "anticipated dismissals" (one last mention of something or someone, a sort of goodbye) are common in Luke.
"Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise" (Lk 24:6). Luke's account repeats a similar 'fulfillment' statement twice more in chapter 24. It is essentially the same as "as he said" (Mt 28:6).
The angel in Matthew is also lying. He says they will see Jesus in Galilee but they actually bump into him about five minutes later in Jerusalem
I don't think the angel's promise means Jesus couldn't appear earlier, if when the women told the disciples what they had seen, they didn't believe them.
Here you are arguing that Mark takes two accounts and produces something slightly less coherent than either. It doesn't seem any more likely than Matthew and Luke trying to fix up Mark's account.
But by changing Mark's account, Matthew and Luke are not going to get closer to the original conversation unless they had a closer witness to it. So assuming it really took place, did Matthew and Luke, writing later than Mark, have better eyewitnesses? On the other hand, if Mark had only Matthew and Luke as sources for a given part of his account, any changes in context would tend to lead to incoherence.
So how did Mark come to write "as he said", referring to seeing Jesus in Galilee? Mark hasn't recorded Jesus saying they would see him there, but he could have meant, "Jesus is going ahead of you into Galilee, as he said. There you will see him". Given that Matthew and Luke's context for the phrase is perfect, I think Mark's slight inaccuracy betrays him as being the copier/re-writer.
That Luke and Matthew both make "as he said" refer to something else, the same something, suggests that their accounts give the original conversation.
In a similar way, "you are looking for Jesus...he is not here" (Mt and Lk) is more authentic than "you are looking for Jesus...he has risen" (Mk).
-
I think this idea makes sense for a fictitious account, but if it was non-fictional the reader would want to know which of the two contexts for the statement was authentic, since they are contradictory, rather than one being "extra".
Except that Luke and Matthew were almost certainly not collaborating and most of the "readers" would probably have heard only one of those gospels. It's not like the Bible existed as a single object back then.
That could also arise if Matthew was one of Luke's sources. Luke could have decided to mention Galilee (as it's in his source), but dismiss it before focusing his own account on Jesus' appearances in Jerusalem? Apparently "anticipated dismissals" (one last mention of something or someone, a sort of goodbye) are common in Luke.
But you agree then that Matthew and Luke's post resurrection accounts are incompatible.
I don't think the angel's promise means Jesus couldn't appear earlier, if when the women told the disciples what they had seen, they didn't believe them.
So the Angel of the Lord was merely mistaken. Doesn't sound very infallibly godlike.
But by changing Mark's account, Matthew and Luke are not going to get closer to the original conversation unless they had a closer witness to it. So assuming it really took place, did Matthew and Luke, writing later than Mark, have better eyewitnesses? On the other hand, if Mark had only Matthew and Luke as sources for a given part of his account, any changes in context would tend to lead to incoherence.
If we take Mark's account literally, he must have made it up, as must Matthew and Luke, unless Mark was lying when he said the women never told anybody.
-
Except that Luke and Matthew were almost certainly not collaborating
I meant that Mt and Lk contradict Mark.
Luke's statement about Jesus predicting his death and rising again is the same as Matthew saying that Jesus had risen, as he said. Luke may have expanded Mt.
and most of the "readers" would probably have heard only one of those gospels.
Good point.
-
But you agree then that Matthew and Luke's post resurrection accounts are incompatible.
I agree that they are different, after the departure of the women, yes. All four gospels say that the women left the tomb.
-
So the Angel of the Lord was merely mistaken. Doesn't sound very infallibly godlike.
If we take Mark's account literally, he must have made it up, as must Matthew and Luke, unless Mark was lying when he said the women never told anybody.
The women might have said nothing to anyone while on route to the disciples.
-
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
Since this was posted on the best bits thread...
I came across this comment (https://connect.rzim.org/t/contradiction-in-resurrection-accounts-matthew-28-8-mark-16-8/31203/5) while looking into the contradiction between Mt 28:8 and Mark 16:8:
"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Matthew's equivalent would be "Matthew the tax collector" in Mt 10:3. Luke is called "the beloved physician" by Paul. Perhaps Mark was a teenager when he was with them in Gethsemane.
-
The women might have said nothing to anyone while on route to the disciples.
Baseless speculation.
-
"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
More baseless speculation.
-
Baseless speculation.
If Mark meant that the women didn't say anything at first, through fear, that doesn't preclude them doing so later in the day, or some women not saying anything and others saying something.
-
More baseless speculation.
The base for it is that John does it, so the others could also.
-
If Mark meant that the women didn't say anything at first, through fear, that doesn't preclude them doing so later in the day, or some women not saying anything and others saying something.
Here's what he wrote:
So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Now, if I were writing a factual account based on eye witness testimony, I would not write that at all, because it would be a lie. The only possible eye witness testimony for those events would be from the women.
-
I came across this comment (https://connect.rzim.org/t/contradiction-in-resurrection-accounts-matthew-28-8-mark-16-8/31203/5) while looking into the contradiction between Mt 28:8 and Mark 16:8:
"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know.
That's all just speculation. If this Mark actually wrote the gospel why wouldn't he just sign it?
We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
No we don't.
Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.
"and we know that his testimony is true". That tells us that the author of the gospel is not John. Who says "I know my own testimony is true". Nobody.
Matthew's equivalent would be "Matthew the tax collector" in Mt 10:3. Luke is called "the beloved physician" by Paul. Perhaps Mark was a teenager when he was with them in Gethsemane.
Curious. We have four gospels, none of which are signed and for all of which somebody has later decided a character in them (except for Luke where we must look to his other book) must be the author. It's almost as if somebody decided that it was embarrassing having these anonymous documents be the only record of Jesus' life and made up some names based on characters in the stories.
Ca you come up with some contemporary examples where the author used the same means of identifying themselves and the author is verifiable by other means?
-
That's all just speculation. If this Mark actually wrote the gospel why wouldn't he just sign it?
Why didn't the disciple whom Jesus loved simply sign his name? We don't know. I agree that it is speculation because the author may have mentioned the man who fled naked just to show the extent to which everyone ran away. It may not be a subtle signature. But it could be.
No we don't.
"and we know that his testimony is true". That tells us that the author of the gospel is not John. Who says "I know my own testimony is true". Nobody.
It tells us that John's gospel has one of the disciples as its eyewitness, who was a close friend of Jesus and wrote down the things recorded in "John". Do we need to know more?
Curious. We have four gospels, none of which are signed and for all of which somebody has later decided a character in them (except for Luke where we must look to his other book) must be the author. It's almost as if somebody decided that it was embarrassing having these anonymous documents be the only record of Jesus' life and made up some names based on characters in the stories.
Speculation.
Ca you come up with some contemporary examples where the author used the same means of identifying themselves and the author is verifiable by other means?
I'll let you know if I do!
-
Here's what he wrote:
Now, if I were writing a factual account based on eye witness testimony, I would not write that at all, because it would be a lie. The only possible eye witness testimony for those events would be from the women.
Yes it would be a lie, however Mark is not writing a completely factual account.That is, he is not careful to check all of his work, for example the quote from Malachi in Ch. 1 he labels as from Isaiah.
-
Why didn't the disciple whom Jesus loved simply sign his name?
Because he didn't write any of the gospels.
We don't know. I agree that it is speculation because the author may have mentioned the man who fled naked to show the extent to which everyone ran away. It may not be a subtle signature.
It isn't a signature at all, it's a post hoc rationalisation.
-
Because he didn't write any of the gospels.
John 21:24 says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
That tells me that whoever wrote 'John' ('we') relied on written material from that disciple and knew him, or possibly it was that disciple referring to himself. It's this 'we' in that verse who haven't signed their names. Should they have?
It isn't a signature at all, it's a post hoc rationalisation.
Yes.
-
John 21:24 says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
That tells me that whoever wrote 'John' ('we') relied on written material from that disciple and knew him, or possibly it was that disciple referring to himself. It's this 'we' in that verse who haven't signed their names. Should they have?Yes.
It doesn’t look like it was that disciple referring to himself. If it was, he seems to be protesting too much.
-
It doesn’t look like it was that disciple referring to himself. If it was, he seems to be protesting too much.
Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.
-
Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.
This s what happened. It's me that witnessed it and I'm telling the truth.. honest, guv!
-
Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.
It looks as if someone decades, if not centuries (noting the timing of the first extant version) was writing an account of events that took place long ago, far, far away and involving people who spoke a different language. And in doing so tried to make it look 'authentic' and for the clear purpose of trying to persuade others to agree with his views.
That isn't a memoir, it is a manifesto by proxy.
And the levels of purported detail count against authenticity as those sorts of details just aren't retained and transmitted accurately over decades and centuries of oral tradition. No it speaks of a fictional narrative, albeit one likely derived from events involving real people and places etc.
-
It looks as if someone decades, if not centuries (noting the timing of the first extant version) was writing an account of events that took place long ago, far, far away and involving people who spoke a different language. And in doing so tried to make it look 'authentic' and for the clear purpose of trying to persuade others to agree with his views.
That isn't a memoir, it is a manifesto by proxy.
And the levels of purported detail count against authenticity as those sorts of details just aren't retained and transmitted accurately over decades and centuries of oral tradition. No it speaks of a fictional narrative, albeit one likely derived from events involving real people and places etc.
Surely a high level of detail can point to either it being an eyewitness account written soon after the events, or to them being made up any time later?
-
Surely a high level of detail can point to either it being an eyewitness account written soon after the events, or to them being made up any time later?
Not really in the world of oral tradition, which is not and never has been about capturing lots of actual detail. It is about story telling, not forensic actual detail capture.
Let's not forget that the stories in the gospels cover events over several years (in the case of Matthew and Luke decades). Who and how could this level of detail have been captured at all, let alone transmitted accurately over decades, if not centuries.
-
I know that my ideas and opinions on the Bible and its contents are mostly ignored due to my admitted non-Christianity, but how anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can consider the Bible, as it exists in 2021, as an accurate record of history since Year Zero AD is beyond me.
Even those who agree that there is little to back up the Bible dated earlier than 400 AD seem to insist that there is a very good chance that it is totally accurate.
Surely the least amount of common sense must mitigate against this!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Not really in the world of oral tradition, which is not and never has been about capturing lots of actual detail. It is about story telling, not forensic actual detail capture.
Let's not forget that the stories in the gospels cover events over several years (in the case of Matthew and Luke decades). Who and how could this level of detail have been captured at all, let alone transmitted accurately over decades, if not centuries.
Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there. Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write. If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.
-
Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there.
Yet more baseless assertion. Where is your actual evidence for any written record of these events. We have the mysterious Q document, that is considered to have been a collection of quotes from Jesus - however there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed, merely a hypothesis that the gospels may have relied on some other (unknown) document. But Q is supposedly just quotes - the gospels include all sorts of other detail that there is no evidence would have been, or could have been, written down. And that type of details isn't accurately recorded in oral tradition. However it is exactly the sort of thing that is added to stories.
Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write.
Except by using a circular argument of the type you so often use, where is the independent evidence that Matthew was a tax inspector - there isn't any.
If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.
What proportion of the population in those days could read and write? Very few. I thought some of the disciples were supposed to be fishermen. Why would someone in that profession be able to read or write.
-
Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there.
But there's no evidence that these documents ever existed, unless you're thinking about Papias' sayings gospel.
Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write.
Assuming he could write (and I'm not convinced he necessarily could - reading is one thing, writing is another), he would be a candidate, but there's no contemporary evidence that he wrote the gospel.
If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.
Firstly, they didn't necessarily need to be able to read. Most people couldn't in those days, but, if they were Jews, they would presumably have sat in the synagogue and listened to people reading the gospels. The idea that being able to read automatically means you can write too is erroneous and probably not the case in 1st century Palestine. Hence the popularity of scribes.
-
Yet more baseless assertion. Where is your actual evidence for any written record of these events. We have the mysterious Q document, that is considered to have been a collection of quotes from Jesus - however there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed, merely a hypothesis that the gospels may have relied on some other (unknown) document. But Q is supposedly just quotes - the gospels include all sorts of other detail that there is no evidence would have been, or could have been, written down. And that type of details isn't accurately recorded in oral tradition. However it is exactly the sort of thing that is added to stories.
Q is not just quotes. It's primarily sayings attributed to Jesus, including quotes, parables, sermons and, of course, the Lord's Prayer but there are a few other bits in it. Here's a complete list of what is in Q
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
Personally, I'm somewhat sceptical that it ever existed as a single document. The obvious answer to the question "why haven't we got any copies" is that there never were any. That would mean Luke had to have a copy of Matthew to work from, but that seems a reasonable assumption.