What Is God Made From?

[Andy]

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to create some propaganda, would you?

See the point yet?

Why would he do it?

Irrelevant. A god can do it and you can't distinguish between the two.

PS. I'm not responding to your other post using a phone. All I will say in a nutshell is what I said here - a god can explain it.

[Andy]

Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.

We've also had an extensive conversation on this before, regarding standing claims up against our current understanding, but perhaps you've forgotten.

[Alien]

...

Alan

Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).

This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.

But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?

I'm not - you just don't like what I've said, and it also seems you don't understand it either.

I have said that I think that the original claim of resurrection is most likely propaganda but I haven't said that I think that all those subsequently believing it knew that it was a lie, even those daft enough to knowingly die for it: they may well all have sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, just as you do.

So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?

We've been down this 'but they died for their beliefs' nonsense before - this may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause, since if you see this martyrdom test as demonstrating that Christianity is true then, for consistency, I assume you take the same position in respect of every suicide bomber in recent times.   

Yes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?

[Alien]

Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.

In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.

We've also had an extensive conversation on this before, regarding standing claims up against our current understanding, but perhaps you've forgotten.

On this board we do go over and over the same stuff. Again, I wonder whether I could be doing something more useful with my life.

[Andy]

Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.

In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.

No sweat, but I don't like seeing it aimed at others either. It's passive aggressive and you're usually better than that.

We've also had an extensive conversation on this before, regarding standing claims up against our current understanding, but perhaps you've forgotten.

On this board we do go over and over the same stuff. Again, I wonder whether I could be doing something more useful with my life.

You're passionate about it and it's addictive? Nothing wrong with that.

[Alien]

Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.

In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.

No sweat, but I don't like seeing it aimed at others either. It's passive aggressive and you're usually better than that.

So is he.

[BeRational]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?

Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.

Which explanation do you have which covers all those?

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

[Gordon]

So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?

I don't know any more than you know who actually wrote each and every bit of the NT: 'interested parties' is perhaps the best that can be said. Even so, we have remarkable claims so that fabrication is a risk.
 

Yes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?

Well you do keep mentioning that some Christians died, so I'm assuming you think this is significant.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?

Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.

Which explanation do you have which covers all those?

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

So not the best explanation then?

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.

[Alien]

So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?

I don't know any more than you know who actually wrote each and every bit of the NT: 'interested parties' is perhaps the best that can be said.

Er, yes. So what?

Even so, we have remarkable claims so that fabrication is a risk.

Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?

 

Yes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?

Well you do keep mentioning that some Christians died, so I'm assuming you think this is significant.

I'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?

Do you understand my point?

Now off to some friends' ordination and then another one's tomorrow. The C of E is not dead yet.

[Gordon]

Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?

Because things to do with people are routine, and people being 'creative' in support of a cause is one example of this. So, when there are remarkable claims made in the form of anecdotes from interested parties then then risk of fabrication is significant, and would be irrespective of the details.

The story about the golf skills of North Korean dictator is a good example - it is 'official' too, but the question is do we believe it (and no supernatural add-ons here);

After picking up a golf club that day for the very first time in his life, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea fired a 38-under-par round of 34 at Pyongyang. According to the 17 security guards who observed the performance, the score included an amazing 11 aces. Naturally, the event was dutifully reported to the North Korean masses by the state news agency.

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/alltime_golf_scoring_record_goes_with_death_of_kim_jong_il 
 

I'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?

Effective propaganda, with perhaps some added fallacious arguments from authority from early Christian leaders? That would do the job nicely. 

[Andy]

There is a bit of an ironic twist of fate in all of this. If a highly improbable/virtually impossible/miraculous explanation is to be believed to be the best explanation, then from that perspective, anyone who believes in another explanation believes something that is even more highly improbable/virtually impossible/miraculous. So, to stay consistent, anyone who does believe another explanation should have theism as their conclusion also.

[BeRational]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?

Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and tbhhe start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.

Which explanation do you have which covers all those?

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

So not the best explanation then?

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.

I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.

[Alien]

Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?

Because things to do with people are routine, and people being 'creative' in support of a cause is one example of this. So, when there are remarkable claims made in the form of anecdotes from interested parties then then risk of fabrication is significant, and would be irrespective of the details.

So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)? In their creativity, how did they manage to stop the Jewish authorities from showing people Jesus' corpse? How did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus? How did they manage to convince so many people that Jesus had risen from the dead? How did they pull this all off?

The story about the golf skills of North Korean dictator is a good example - it is 'official' too, but the question is do we believe it (and no supernatural add-ons here);

After picking up a golf club that day for the very first time in his life, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea fired a 38-under-par round of 34 at Pyongyang. According to the 17 security guards who observed the performance, the score included an amazing 11 aces. Naturally, the event was dutifully reported to the North Korean masses by the state news agency.

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/alltime_golf_scoring_record_goes_with_death_of_kim_jong_il 

And who are the independent witnesses here? Names, please.

 

I'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?

Effective propaganda, with perhaps some added fallacious arguments from authority from early Christian leaders? That would do the job nicely.

So what was the effective propaganda that so convinced Peter of Jesus' resurrection that he was prepared to die for this belief (1 Clement)? How did they manage to convince Jesus' half brother James (Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1)). I'd be particularly interested in your explanation of how Peter would have been diddled into thinking Jesus was alive.

[Alien]

...

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

So not the best explanation then?

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.

I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.

No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.

[BeRational]

...

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

So not the best explanation then?

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.

I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.

No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.

Yes they are.

Anecdotal claims of miracles must always be ignored.

That's the rules.

Anyone who accepts miracle claims is a gullible fool.

[Gordon]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

[Alien]

...

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

Its the simplest explanation.

So not the best explanation then?

People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.

Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.

I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.

No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.

Yes they are.

Anecdotal claims of miracles must always be ignored.

No, that is incorrect.

That's the rules.

No, they are not. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

Anyone who accepts miracle claims is a gullible fool.

See above.

[Alien]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

[BeRational]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

What witnesses do you have?

Are they in the same book?

[Alien]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

What witnesses do you have?

Are they in the same book?

They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).

[BeRational]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

What witnesses do you have?

Are they in the same book?

They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).

These are all part of the bible that has been edited.

You do not even know wrote ANY of the gospels. No one does.

And even that does not matter, as it's just words in a book, you cannot check if it is true.

So, no witnesses no external corroboration.

As I always point out, there is masses of this sort on evidence and witness testimony for sai baba, and for alien abduction.

In fact there is far more, and you could even talk to living witnesses.

The only reason you give the bible myth a free ride, is due to confirmation bias. It says what you want to hear.

Why can you not see this?

[Gordon]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.

[Alien]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

What witnesses do you have?

Are they in the same book?

They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).

These are all part of the bible that has been edited.

Edited? In what way? Are you saying that the stuff about the resurrection was added later?

You do not even know wrote ANY of the gospels. No one does.

You may not know who wrote the gospels, but don't tar us all with the same brush, please.

And even that does not matter, as it's just words in a book, you cannot check if it is true.

Er, that is the case with all history from more than a generation ago.

So, no witnesses no external corroboration.

N/a.

As I always point out, there is masses of this sort on evidence and witness testimony for sai baba, and for alien abduction.

It would help if you read people's replies. We have discussed sai baba before and I have pointed you to examples, including videos, where he has been shown to fiddle things.

In fact there is far more, and you could even talk to living witnesses.

Videos are better.

The only reason you give the bible myth a free ride, is due to confirmation bias. It says what you want to hear.

So, how did I come be a Christian from being an atheist then?

Why can you not see this?

Because what you write is incorrect.

[Alien]

Alan

You are missing the point.

The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.

Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?

The reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.

Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.

And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.

What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?