Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For clarity that's the non miracle stories that are being referred to here, the miracle based ones not being the subject of the study of history for reasons covered here many times.

The naturalistic weldbilt of the societies these particular
academic departments find themselves in?
Ehrman talks about some historians dismissing miracles a priori and therefore there are some who don't.
If you wish to enter a "No true historian" argument, nows the time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

For clarity that's the non miracle stories that are being referred to here, the miracle based ones not being the subject of the study of history for reasons covered here many times.

Yes - I took Spud's meaning to be that there's no reason to doubt the historicity of the miracle stories in the Gospels, not the "X begat Y" stuff. If that was his meaning, then he was wrong about that.   

[Nearly Sane]

The naturalistic weldbilt of the societies these particular
academic departments find themselves in?
Ehrman talks about some historians dismissing miracles a priori and therefore there are some who don't.
If you wish to enter a "No true historian" argument, nows the time.

Do you really want to revisit where you quotemined Ehrman to lie about what he said? Reheated lies are even more unpalatable then fresh omes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The naturalistic weldbilt of the societies these particular
academic departments find themselves in?
Ehrman talks about some historians dismissing miracles a priori and therefore there are some who don't.
If you wish to enter a "No true historian" argument, nows the time.

What are you trying to say here? Academic historians "dismiss miracles a priori" in the sense that academic physicists "dismiss a priori" claims of gravity being caused by pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings - ie, they're indifferent to them because such claims aren't history/physics methods apt. The problem of them not being any other means of verification apt either is one for the people proposing them though, not for historians and physicists.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes - I took Spud's meaning to be that there's no reason to doubt the historicity of the miracle stories in the Gospels, not the "X begat Y" stuff. If that was his meaning, then he was wrong about that.

Ah, see now I'm confused. I don't see that copying errors are any particular reason to doubt miracle stories, since in terms of the study of history, the miracle stories are irrelevant.

[Alan Burns]

If you had sound evidence, Alan, then you wouldn't need personal faith, and in any event 'evidence' and 'faith' seem to be mutually exclusive.

There is sound evidence to explain why planes stay in the air that holds without needing any personal 'faith': and having confidence in the evidence that aviation works is not the same thing as 'faith' in a religious sense. There is no sound evidence for the miracles attributed to Jesus and those who accept them do so solely on the basis of personal 'faith', where those without 'faith' tend not to blindly accept miracle claims as being evidence for miracles.

'

There is no sound evidence for how this universe came into existence from nothing.
There is no sound evidence to explain how the incredible fine tuned parameters needed to enable the formation of stars and planets came unintended.
There is no sound evidence for how life came into existence from random events.
There is no sound evidence for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
There is no sound evidence to explain how rational thought can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
There is no sound evidence to explain away the miracles still being performed today in the name of Jesus.
There is no sound evidence to explain why many Muslims are currently experiencing vivid dreams about Jesus.
There is no sound evidence which offers any materialistic view of meaning and purpose in our lives.
I could go on .....

In essence, Gordon, your belief system involves a lot more blind faith than my Christian life.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no sound evidence for how this universe came into existence from nothing.
There is no sound evidence to explain how the incredible fine tuned parameters needed to enable the formation of stars and planets came unintended.
There is no sound evidence for how life came into existence from random events.
There is no sound evidence for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
There is no sound evidence to explain how rational thought can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
There is no sound evidence to explain away the miracles still being performed today in the name of Jesus.
There is no sound evidence to explain why many Muslims are currently experiencing vivid dreams about Jesus.
There is no sound evidence which offers any materialistic view of meaning and purpose in our lives.
I could go on .....

In essence, Gordon, your belief system involves a lot more blind faith than my Christian life.

  Shall we start with the first one? Gordon hasn't made a claim that the universe came from nothing so why put it up? Many of the rest are similar and some such as the miracle claim is you reversing the burden of proof. This 'Gish gallop' from you is badly thought out, based on illogicalities and misrepresentations.

[ProfessorDavey]

The consequences of me being wrong are trivial compared to the consequences of you being wrong.

Oh dear - the old Pascal's wager non-sense again.

There are literally thousands of gods that have been purported to exist by humans throughout history. And no doubt people 'believed' in the existence of those gods just as fervently as you do in yours.

The existence of many of those gods are mutually exclusive - the most obvious notion being that if there can only be one god (monotheism) then the others cannot exist. Many of those gods are purported to be vengeful in various ways - randomly vengeful, vengeful against those that do not believe, vengeful agains those that believe in another god (false gods etc, etc).

So the wager is much more complicated that a binary believe in christian god vs do not believe in a christian god. So you takes you pick based on your beliefs, but in a Pascal's wager sense AB, you are in just as bad a position as I am, because while if your god is real then I may be in trouble, if there is a non-christian god whose main gripe is the worship of false gods then you are in trouble and I'm not.

But frankly this is nonsense, not least due to the fact that you cannot just make yourself believe in something that you do not believe, and surely any god worth its name would be able to tell the difference between real belief and pretend belief. So overall you have to trust your own belief or lack of belief and be comfortable with that belief/lack of belief. I'm perfectly comfortable with my lack of belief as I've never seen any credible evidence to change that view. You on the other hand rely on belief, and if you actually had evidence, you wouldn't need belief or faith would you now.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no sound evidence to explain why many Muslims are currently experiencing vivid dreams about Jesus.

I mean ... wtf ... just non-sense made up stuff.

[Gordon]

There is no sound evidence for how this universe came into existence from nothing.
There is no sound evidence to explain how the incredible fine tuned parameters needed to enable the formation of stars and planets came unintended.
There is no sound evidence for how life came into existence from random events.
There is no sound evidence for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
There is no sound evidence to explain how rational thought can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
There is no sound evidence to explain away the miracles still being performed today in the name of Jesus.
There is no sound evidence to explain why many Muslims are currently experiencing vivid dreams about Jesus.
There is no sound evidence which offers any materialistic view of meaning and purpose in our lives.
I could go on .....

In essence, Gordon, your belief system involves a lot more blind faith than my Christian life.

This post of yours is sheer idiocy, Alan - I assume that frustration got the better of you.

Fallacy-spotters would have a field day, but there are so many, and they are in such a tangle that it's not worth disentangling them - but your favourite ones all make an appearance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you really want to revisit where you quotemined Ehrman to lie about what he said? Reheated lies are even more unpalatable then fresh omes.

Maybe we need to for you to finally establish where he states that history is methodologically naturalistic. As opposed to some treating history as a priori naturalistic. This of course is before his statement that he can neither(presumably as a historian) confirm or deny them. This and his statement suggesting that no historian is bound to deny them. Are you denying his statement that miracles are a problem for both believing and unbelieving historians?

Of course, my quotes are mined and yours are as golden skidmarks on the Underpants of academic history.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe we need to for you to finally establish where he states that history is methodologically naturalistic. As opposed to some treating history as a priori naturalistic. This of course is before his statement that he can neither(presumably as a historian) confirm or deny them. This and his statement suggesting that no historian is bound to deny them. Are you denying his statement that miracles are a problem for both believing and unbelieving historians?

Of course, my quotes are mined and yours are as golden skidmarks on the Underpants of academic history.

When he writes

'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion'

Which is in your quote but even when it was pointed out ti you, you ignored it.

And yes miracles would be a problem to assess for any historian since as already pointed out it is methodologically naturalistic as Ehrman's quote agrees, and there is no methodology for assessing such claims, as Ehrman agrees, and despite many many times of asking for one from you, none has been provided 

[jeremyp]

Ah, see now I'm confused. I don't see that copying errors are any particular reason to doubt miracle stories, since in terms of the study of history, the miracle stories are irrelevant.

The miracle stories are not irrelevant. Obviously, they are ruled out as being true by methodological naturalism, but they certainly are not irrelevant in the sense that the history of Christianity depends on when, how and why they actually arose.

The resurrection didn't happen but it's fairly clear that the belief in the resurrection arose quite early in the history of Christianity. Paul writing in the 50's clearly believed it and admonished people who didn't.

[Nearly Sane]

The miracle stories are not irrelevant. Obviously, they are ruled out as being true by methodological naturalism, but they certainly are not irrelevant in the sense that the history of Christianity depends on when, how and why they actually arose.

The resurrection didn't happen but it's fairly clear that the belief in the resurrection arose quite early in the history of Christianity. Paul writing in the 50's clearly believed it and admonished people who didn't.

Agree, thank you for the correction.

[jeremyp]

I mean ... wtf ... just non-sense made up stuff.

Eating too much cheese before bedtime, probably.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Ah, see now I'm confused. I don't see that copying errors are any particular reason to doubt miracle stories, since in terms of the study of history, the miracle stories are irrelevant.

Yes, but both are true. Miracle stories are a priori not amenable to the tests for historicity. Also though the accounts of miracles are quite likely to have been corrupted in their transmission.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is no sound evidence for how this universe came into existence from nothing.
There is no sound evidence to explain how the incredible fine tuned parameters needed to enable the formation of stars and planets came unintended.
There is no sound evidence for how life came into existence from random events.
There is no sound evidence for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
There is no sound evidence to explain how rational thought can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
There is no sound evidence to explain away the miracles still being performed today in the name of Jesus.
There is no sound evidence to explain why many Muslims are currently experiencing vivid dreams about Jesus.
There is no sound evidence which offers any materialistic view of meaning and purpose in our lives.
I could go on .....

In essence, Gordon, your belief system involves a lot more blind faith than my Christian life.

Each item in this list contains one or more mistakes in reasoning. You have made these mistakes before and the reasons they're mistakes have been given to you. You have just ignored these reasons and returned to the same mistakes. I could once more take apart your list line-by-line to show you where and why you're still mistaken, but presumably you would continue to ignore the same falsifications if I did. What then would be the point?

Suffice it to say that you continue to be wrong about everything you've listed. Should you be minded to say something like, "OK, this time if you explain to me where I've gone wrong I promise at least to try to address the falsifications you give me" I shall do it again.

It's up to you.   

   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but both are true. Miracle stories are a priori not amenable to the tests for historicity. Also though the accounts of miracles are quite likely to have been corrupted in their transmission.

And yet, I'm not going to be reading about the resurrection wondering whether or not to treat it as a valid historical claim because of possible copying errors.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And yet, I'm not going to be reading about the resurrection wondering whether or not to treat it as a valid historical claim because of possible copying errors.

Nor am I, but both arguments are true nonetheless.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you denying his statement that miracles are a problem for both believing and unbelieving historians?

That's not his statement. Why are you still lying about this?

[ekim]

The disciple John was the source for John's gospel.

......... which is a surprise when in Acts 4:13 he and Peter were described as illiterate and common men.

[Spud]

These is no provenance of note for any of these, and any or all could contain mistakes or lies - how have you taken account of these risks?

Here is one mistake: Matthew says there were two blind men at Jericho whom Jesus healed as they left the town. Luke says one, and that it happened as they approached the town. But just when we thought it was safe to dismiss the reports as contradictory, Mark comes along and names the man 'Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus'. Further, Mark's home was in Jerusalem, near Jericho. So it is not surprising that Mark can give details derived from what was reported there.(See Riley, H, The Making of Mark). So there is our provenance. Now about lies: would this story have been accepted by the church if it was known that there was no such person as Bartimaeus, or that he wasn't ever blind?

[Gordon]

Here is one mistake: Matthew says there were two blind men at Jericho whom Jesus healed as they left the town. Luke says one, and that it happened as they approached the town. But just when we thought it was safe to dismiss the reports as contradictory, Mark comes along and names the man 'Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus'. Further, Mark's home was in Jerusalem, near Jericho. So it is not surprising that Mark can give details derived from what was reported there.(See Riley, H, The Making of Mark). So there is our provenance. Now about lies: would this story have been accepted by the church if it was known that there was no such person as Bartimaeus, or that he wasn't ever blind?

Nope - this reads like no more than anecdote and, as such, is easily dismissed as history. Even it it were true how could you ever know for sure, and why would it matter anyway since the details seem fairly trivial?

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is one mistake: Matthew says there were two blind men at Jericho whom Jesus healed as they left the town. Luke says one, and that it happened as they approached the town. But just when we thought it was safe to dismiss the reports as contradictory, Mark comes along and names the man 'Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus'. Further, Mark's home was in Jerusalem, near Jericho. So it is not surprising that Mark can give details derived from what was reported there.(See Riley, H, The Making of Mark). So there is our provenance. Now about lies: would this story have been accepted by the church if it was known that there was no such person as Bartimaeus, or that he wasn't ever blind?

But, at best, the gospels were written some 50-80 years after these events are purported to have taken place. Of course we don't have the originals and only have actual text from perhaps 200 years after, which may or may not be the same as the original.

But even accepting for the sake of argument that this is what was written in the original how on earth could the gospel writers (many decades later) have verified these claims to actually be correct. Bottom line, they couldn't - all they could do is work on the basis of hearsay and claims transmitted through multiple sources and routes that may, or may not, bare any resemblance to the actuality decades earlier. Oral transmission of detail is notoriously unreliable, subject to error, misinterpretation, mistakes, deliberate alterations and additions (often in the form of detail) to try to add 'credibility' when in fact huge levels of detail are often a tell tale sign of poor oral transmission.

And let's not forget that the nature of the NT, including which books were and were not included, wasn't settled until hundreds of years after the purported events. How on earth would those critical church leaders deciding what to include, what not to include, which of the variant texts was the 'authentic' one, have any way of verifying the veracity or otherwise of the claims. They couldn't - they weren't working on the basis of accuracy but on the basis of developing an orthodoxy of religious dogma and ensuring that the 'agreed' form of the NT  aligned to that dogma.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Here is one mistake: Matthew says there were two blind men at Jericho whom Jesus healed as they left the town. Luke says one, and that it happened as they approached the town. But just when we thought it was safe to dismiss the reports as contradictory, Mark comes along and names the man 'Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus'. Further, Mark's home was in Jerusalem, near Jericho. So it is not surprising that Mark can give details derived from what was reported there.(See Riley, H, The Making of Mark). So there is our provenance. Now about lies: would this story have been accepted by the church if it was known that there was no such person as Bartimaeus, or that he wasn't ever blind?

What relevance do you think this has to your claim that the Gospels are an historically accurate record of miracles?