Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Nice straw man, Alan, since I'm not claiming an authority status.

Lewis was indeed a significant scholar but a buffoon when it came to his pro-Christian output, as I think several of us pointed out recently when you offered up his hopeless 'man or rabbit' essay.

Lewis uses his considerable knowledge to point out the difference between the Gospels and other writings of this era.

So to what do you attribute the significant style of writing in the Gospels which did not occur in other writings of the time, nor did it occur for many centuries after?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lewis uses his considerable knowledge to point out the difference between the Gospels and other writings of this era.

That may be true - he also though used pretty awful thinking to validate his faith beliefs.

So to what do you attribute the significant style of writing in the Gospels which did not occur in other writings of the time, nor did it occur for many centuries after?

Actually it did occur a lot both before and after - the Greeks for example similarly mixed fact and myth. Why wouldn't you when you think it's all fact anyway? If, say, a great storm blew up and sank your navy, why wouldn't you record the event and say that Poseidon did it?

[Nearly Sane]

Lewis uses his considerable knowledge to point out the difference between the Gospels and other writings of this era.

So to what do you attribute the significant style of writing in the Gospels which did not occur in other writings of the time, nor did it occur for many centuries after?

Does any of his considerable knowledge of writings and history  have a methodology to assess supernaturalistic claims, given his qualifications were based on use of naturalistic methodology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No doubt, as indeed do the chronicles from different religious traditions you believe to be wrong. How do the witness accounts of Mohammed on his winged horse sound to your ears? The point though is not the reporting of events so much as the explanatory narratives that were subsequently woven around them: “Fred says that Bill told him that decades ago Harry saw a bloke killed and walking around a few days later, therefore a resurrection” etc. 

There were (and are) lots or narratives from many predecessor civilisations (Greek, Egyptian etc), many of which were co-opted by the early Christians, a process called syncretisation. The resurrection story in particular appears frequently in many earlier stories.

Lots of peoples believed lots of things in those days, and in earlier days, and in other places etc. Pretty much any civilisation with a long lineage has myths and miracle stories of its own.

There is no such argument. The only arguments necessary are those that falsify the arguments attempted by theists. 

Circular reasoning: “God is real because God could do these things.”

It’s valid when people cite “the Gospels” as evidence for their religious beliefs. They’re no more evidence than the chronicles from other faiths are evidence for their factual claims.

That’s just a claim – you can’t retro-fit a claim you find appealing to its truthfulness or otherwise. You make this mistake a lot I’ve noticed – if you big up the claim enough, somehow that reaches back into its epistemic value.

It doesn’t.

See my earlier reply to Be Rational who puts the same point most succinctly.
Also Maeght framed similar issues.

See my replies No 16403 and 16411.

Also I feel you have overlooked the evidence of the epistles. Concentrating on the Gospels. I have posted a reply to Maeght on this thread since I felt he had done the same.
Perhaps you would like to direct us to epistoliary content in the ''chronicles of other faiths'' as you put it.

[floo]

The title of this thread is 'Searching for God'. Why do humans have to search for god, why doesn't it present itself to the world in a manner, which cannot be denied by even the most sceptical person on this planet? Surely a god, who is supposedly capable of all the things claimed for it, would have no difficulty in devising a method, which ensures every human knows it exists. The fact that this has never happened leads to the conclusion god likes playing games of hide and seek, or more likely doesn't exist.

Those who tell you that if you seek god it will come through for you, haven't had my experience. As I have said boringly often, as a child and a believer, I really needed its help and sincerely prayed god or Jesus would give me some sign they were listening to my entreaties. I never once had any indication anyone was there, and it made me feel very lonely, especially as there was no one with whom to share my problem. If they couldn't help a child in need of their support, it doesn't make one feel good about them.

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

That may be true - he also though used pretty awful thinking to validate his faith beliefs.

Actually it did occur a lot both before and after - the Greeks for example similarly mixed fact and myth. Why wouldn't you when you think it's all fact anyway? If, say, a great storm blew up and sank your navy, why wouldn't you record the event and say that Poseidon did it?

To quote from the Odyssey around the time when he meets Nausicaa  'Stand as you are, girls, a little away from me, so that I can wash the salt off my shoulders and use the olive oil on them. It is long since my skin has known any ointment. But I will not bathe in front of you, for I feel embarrassed in the presence of lovely-haired girls to appear all naked'

Obviously the mention of the length of time makes it true

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does any of his considerable knowledge of writings and history  have a methodology to assess supernaturalistic claims, given his qualifications were based on use of naturalistic methodology?

I think the debate was about whether the 1st century Palestinians had the skills or aptitude to produce the NT as a rounded work of fiction before its time. Why are you trying to deflect that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To quote from the Odyssey around the time when he meets Nausicaa  'Stand as you are, girls, a little away from me, so that I can wash the salt off my shoulders and use the olive oil on them. It is long since my skin has known any ointment. But I will not bathe in front of you, for I feel embarrassed in the presence of lovely-haired girls to appear all naked'

Obviously the mention of the length of time makes it true

Could you direct us to the epistiolary evidence in The Odyssey, thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To quote from the Odyssey around the time when he meets Nausicaa  'Stand as you are, girls, a little away from me, so that I can wash the salt off my shoulders and use the olive oil on them. It is long since my skin has known any ointment. But I will not bathe in front of you, for I feel embarrassed in the presence of lovely-haired girls to appear all naked'

Obviously the mention of the length of time makes it true

Doesn't this suffer from the same problems of Gordon's Sherlock Homes argument though?
See my earlier reply to Gordon.

[Maeght]

Yes my point is writing a story or a narrative is a completely different thing from letters outlining protocol, discipline, policies, ethos in an organisation or community, progress reporting and just day to day chat.

This stuff if less likely to be nitty gritty message and would deal with problems, troubles ,doubts, successes, advice. What the NT epistles show is a community which believed in the same ground covered by the Gospels. They represent our first available Gospel if you will is implicit and explicit in the epistles in a looser curation or edition.

The example given by Alan wasn't in the NT epistles was it?

I would certainly agree that the NT epistles are likely to show a community which believed in the same ground as the Gospels - believed being the key point. A community may believe something and write about it and refer to it in its writings but that doesn't make it true does it?

A bit more on my position - essentially, I have no belief in God and have never had any experience that might make me rethink that. The NT certainly comes across as a document put together by people who have a strong belief in what they are saying but just because people believed stuff and wrote about it many centuries ago doesn't mean I'm going to believe the same as them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The example given by Alan wasn't in the NT epistles was it?

I would certainly agree that the NT epistles are likely to show a community which believed in the same ground as the Gospels - believed being the key point. A community may believe something and write about it and refer to it in its writings but that doesn't make it true does it?

A bit more on my position - essentially, I have no belief in God and have never had any experience that might make me rethink that. The NT certainly comes across as a document put together by people who have a strong belief in what they are saying but just because people believed stuff and wrote about it many centuries ago doesn't mean I'm going to believe the same as them.

I see this as a bottom up discussion that's why I am criticising folks here for applying overviews and generalisations since starting on the premise that we can't somehow take Lewis seriously on his scholarly opinion because he is a buffoon in his pro-Christianity or that there are loads of religions with holy books or that ancient people were more credulous isn't helpful or particularly intellectual IMHO.

[Gordon]

Deary Me.

Start with an ad hominem eh Gordon.
I think it is to his scholarship we are appealing to so far in this thread. You've kind of Gone nuclear Gordon. Straight to the ''Oh well he's just a buffoon''(evidence might be nice)

You could try reading 'man or rabbit', where his buffoonery is in evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't this suffer from the same problems of Gordon's Sherlock Homes argument though?
See my earlier reply to Gordon.

No, it,s drawing attention to a detail in exactly the same way as the drawing in the sand. It's not essentially relevant to the story but gives credibility.

[Nearly Sane]

Could you direct us to the epistiolary evidence in The Odyssey, thank you.

We are discussing how detail is used. Your point is irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the debate was about whether the 1st century Palestinians had the skills or aptitude to produce the NT as a rounded work of fiction before its time. Why are you trying to deflect that?

Because it is being used to validate the supernatural claims as well. Any chance of an answer?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could try reading 'man or rabbit', where his buffoonery is in evidence.

I have done but buffoonery never crossed my mind. Let me look up the definition of buffoonery...........Ah I see you are name calling.

Bertrand Russell is a poohead.....we can now ignore his mathematical scholarship.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it is being used to validate the supernatural claims as well. Any chance of an answer?

Here's your problem first of all we have here the danger of a bottom up establishment of events taking place.

Were I an atheist that might ''shit me up something bad.''

Because for one thing I am speaking about general things like methodology and supernatural. So I can dismiss Christianity from the start on the precepts of my beliefs on the supernatural. That is not particularly satisfactory.

Secondly, Key miracles...example could a virgin birth happen and could it be methodologically established as a virgin birth? Well yes because we know it is both physically possible and methodologically establishable.

So...we have to be careful in saying what physical phenomenon...and a person once dead and risen would be a physical phenomenon...can physically happen.

Polkinghorne points out that miracles could be improbable events.

What cannot be established is the divine as Polkinghorne points out.

A logical materialist would see my point since life is due to arrangement of the physical.

What can't be established would be the reason for it or the divinity of it. That is a different dimension.

Hope that keeps you sweet.

[Gordon]

I have done but buffoonery never crossed my mind. Let me look up the definition of buffoonery...........Ah I see you are name calling.

Bertrand Russell is a poohead.....we can now ignore his mathematical scholarship.

Not really: buffoonery implies silliness or foolishness, as is evident in his 'man or rabbit' essay. However you assess his literary skills his role as a Christian apologist doesn't stand scrutiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

See my earlier reply to Be Rational who puts the same point most succinctly.

Also Maeght framed similar issues.

See my replies No 16403 and 16411.

Also I feel you have overlooked the evidence of the epistles. Concentrating on the Gospels. I have posted a reply to Maeght on this thread since I felt he had done the same.
Perhaps you would like to direct us to epistoliary content in the ''chronicles of other faiths'' as you put it.

In 16390 you attempted several arguments that were to varying degrees and for various reasons wrong. In 16423 I told you why they were wrong. Your choices are to try to counter-argue the falsifications or to amend or withdraw your arguments. When you do neither, they just stay wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Here's your problem first of all we have here the danger of a bottom up establishment of events taking place.

Were I an atheist that might ''shit me up something bad.''

“Bottom up” is how epistemology works. The type or content of the claim can’t be back-fitted to change that. It’s you’re, “OK, a small dragon would be daft, but a really big one on the other hand…” problem.

Because for one thing I am speaking about general things like methodology and supernatural. So I can dismiss Christianity from the start on the precepts of my beliefs on the supernatural. That is not particularly satisfactory.

No, you dismiss the factual claims of Christianity on the ground that there are no cogent arguments to support them.

Secondly,…

“Secondly…”?

Key miracles...example could a virgin birth happen and could it be methodologically established as a virgin birth? Well yes because we know it is both physically possible and methodologically establishable.

We know neither of those things. What on earth are you smoking these days?

So...we have to be careful in saying what physical phenomenon...and a person once dead and risen would be a physical phenomenon...can physically happen.

No, all we have to be careful about is claiming as facts things we cannot know to be true – about the supernatural for example.

Polkinghorne points out that miracles could be improbable events.

Yes, but lots of events are improbable without overreaching into claims of the supernatural. If you want to call those events "miracles", that's up to you.

What cannot be established is the divine as Polkinghorne points out.

Finally! So if can’t be “established”, why assert it anyway?

A logical materialist would see my point since life is due to arrangement of the physical.

Have you finally changed sides or something? Yes, a materialist works on the assumption that the world is material.

What can't be established would be the reason for it or the divinity of it. That is a different dimension.

“Reason" and “divinity” are not the same thing, and asking for a reason is begging the question: you’d have to establish first a something to determine the reason, which immediately gives you the problem of the reason for that “something” being there too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“Bottom up” is how epistemology works. The type or content of the claim can’t be back-fitted to change that. It’s you’re, “OK, a small dragon would be daft, but a really big one on the other hand…” problem.

No, you dismiss the factual claims of Christianity on the ground that there are no cogent arguments to support them.

“Secondly…”?

We know neither of those things. What on earth are you smoking these days?

Yes we know of AI and IVF.
Can a resurrection be classed as a highly improbable event. Yes.
Could there ever be a technical resurrection? Yes......... if information is physical oh I see you think it is.

Life is merely how matter is arranged isn't it?

An intelligent materialist would of course twig this...and you don't seem to.

[Nearly Sane]

Odd that AB choose a passage for which there is considerable controversy about laters interpolations as evidence

any comment about the controversy over the passage?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Reason" and “divinity” are not the same thing, and asking for a reason is begging the question: you’d have to establish first a something to determine the reason, which immediately gives you the problem of the reason for that “something” being there too.

Non secateurs.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes we know of AI and IVF.
Can a resurrection be classed as a highly improbable event. Yes.
Could there ever be a technical resurrection? Yes......... if information is physical oh I see you think it is.

Life is merely how matter is arranged isn't it?

An intelligent materialist would of course twig this...and you don't seem to.

except you aren't suggesting it as a naturalistic phenomenon, are you?

[Nearly Sane]

Non secateurs.

Your post describes itself.