Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

So, back to the question you avoided answering, which was what steps have you taken to assess the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT content?

It all depends on how you interpret the evidence for and against the truth of the NT.  Some former atheists such as Frank Morison and CS Lewis became converts to Christianity after serious analysis of the evidence, as detailed in their books "Who Moved the Stone" and "Surprised by Joy".

[Nearly Sane]

It all depends on how you interpret the evidence for and against the truth of the NT.  Some former atheists such as Frank Morison and CS Lewis became converts to Christianity after serious analysis of the evidence, as detailed in their books "Who Moved the Stone" and "Surprised by Joy".

Can you provide a methodology , as you have been asked for many times and failed to do so, that is appropriate for evaluating supernatural claims?

[Gordon]

But you yourself would appear to be using a reification fallacy in proclaiming the likelihood of a soul's eternal salvation to that of Noddy living in Toytown.

Nope, you misunderstand since I simply noted that your idea of 'eternal salvation' is an example of reification.

Then I separately noted that your 'But have you seriously considered the risk of missing out on the eternal salvation of your human soul?' question to me is no more a serious proposition than Noddy is: prepare yourself for a shock, Noddy is identifiable fiction and the supernatural claims in the NT are indistinguishable from fiction so there is no good reason to take either seriously unless in the case of the NT you can explain how you've meaningfully addressed the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies.

If you can't then it seems to me that the Jesus walked on water claim is comparable with the undoubted fiction that Noddy lives in Toytown. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you provide a methodology , as you have been asked for many times and failed to do so, that is appropriate for evaluating supernatural claims?

I don't know if you are trying to swing a discussion on the NT claims as history back onto a hobby horse.

Given that I for one have said there may not be a methodology and that the methodology of which you speak is science, I think it would help if you would outline which parts of the NT claim about the life of Jesus, and the period prior to what is referred to as the ascension, you find to be supernatural bearing in mind I have pointed out that a resurrected person would present as measurable and the difficulties of establishing supernaturality as opposed to highly improbable naturality.

[Gordon]

It all depends on how you interpret the evidence for and against the truth of the NT.  Some former atheists such as Frank Morison and CS Lewis became converts to Christianity after serious analysis of the evidence, as detailed in their books "Who Moved the Stone" and "Surprised by Joy".

What evidence and what associated methods?

We've already noted that in relation to his Christian apologetics stuff Lewis was a buffoon and employed any number of fallacies (as we noted in relation to 'man or rabbit'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence and what associated methods?

We've already noted that in relation to his Christian apologetics stuff Lewis was a buffoon and employed any number of fallacies (as we noted in relation to 'man or rabbit'.

When was this can you cite or repeat them?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know if you are trying to swing a discussion on the NT claims as history back onto a hobby horse.

Given that I for one have said there may not be a methodology and that the methodology of which you speak is science, I think it would help if you would outline which parts of the NT claim about the life of Jesus, and the period prior to what is referred to as the ascension, you find to be supernatural bearing in mind I have pointed out that a resurrected person would present as measurable and the difficulties of establishing supernaturality as opposed to highly improbable naturality.

First of all 'the methodology of which I speak' isn't science. I was asking for a methodology for supernatural claims. I am glad to note that after thousands of times of being asked you have stated that you, as an individual don't have one.

As to what I find supernatural, I am not the one making the claims. AB argues that these are supernatural and that thus is evidence of a god. If your definition of a god, is more in the line of Arthur Clarke's sufficiently advanced species then I suggest you and AB have a little discussion amongst yourselves about your patent disagreement.

If you are positing that all the events in the Bible are naturalistic evidence of an advanced species, this seems more in line with Nick Marks. It's certainly far from the mainstream, and indeed appears to me in contradiction of previous posting from you. Given that I would be interested in what it is you are proposing happens in the NT since it is as ever your claim, your burden of proof.

[torridon]

But have you seriously considered the risk of missing out on the eternal salvation of your human soul?

Have you considered giving up circular beliefs ?

[Nearly Sane]

What evidence and what associated methods?

We've already noted that in relation to his Christian apologetics stuff Lewis was a buffoon and employed any number of fallacies (as we noted in relation to 'man or rabbit'.

Note, this is in reply to this but also to AB's post that triggered it, and to other posts where writers are cited but not their arguments.


I think it would be useful if people cited arguments from writers rather than the writers as individuals. Also even if we were too show that Lewis was a buffoon on one thing, it cannot defeat other arguments he may have made, as that is simply an ad hom fallacy.


Merely citing people such as Feser or Lewis or Dawkins is pointless. If you think they make good arguments then cite the argument perhaps with a link to where it is covered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know if you are trying to swing a discussion on the NT claims as history back onto a hobby horse.

Given that I for one have said there may not be a methodology…

Finally! So, if there is no methodology to sort your clams from just guessing, why should anyone treat them as anything other than just guessing?

…and that the methodology of which you speak is science…

No it isn’t. Science is a method, but if you think it doesn’t work for your beliefs then propose a different one.

I think it would help if you would outline which parts of the NT claim about the life of Jesus, and the period prior to what is referred to as the ascension, you find to be supernatural…

Does anyone do that or is this another of your straw men? That there may have been a non-divine soothsayer/preacher/street conjuror type is no great stretch – there were plenty of those.

…bearing in mind I have pointed out that a resurrected person would present as measurable…

No he wouldn’t. What measure of “aliveness then deadness then alive again-ness” would you propose, especially given the state of medical knowledge at the time?
 

…and the difficulties of establishing supernaturality as opposed to highly improbable naturality.

What are you proposing to now – a naturalistic Jesus only one with super advanced abilities we don’t yet have the science to understand? Well, that’s different at least I suppose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of all 'the methodology of which I speak' isn't science. I was asking for a methodology for supernatural claims. I am glad to note that after thousands of times of being asked you have stated that you, as an individual don't have one.

As to what I find supernatural, I am not the one making the claims. AB argues that these are supernatural and that thus is evidence of a god. If your definition of a god, is more in the line of Arthur Clarke's sufficiently advanced species then I suggest you and AB have a little discussion amongst yourselves about your patent disagreement.

If you are positing that all the events in the Bible are naturalistic evidence of an advanced species, this seems more in line with Nick Marks. It's certainly far from the mainstream, and indeed appears to me in contradiction of previous posting from you. Given that I would be interested in what it is you are proposing happens in the NT since it is as ever your claim, your burden of proof.

Firstly people have IMO offered pathways to belief and various process pathways.
In my view instead of offering a ''no that isn't a method'' or even ''no that isn't a method because'' you have made out that they haven't made the effort. What I find is that were we to examine what you mean by a method we would inexorably come up with science.

There are atheists on this board I seem to recall for whom a resurrection would be proof of God. So there is nothing unusual about Alans position.
In this case he has plumped for a divine rather than alien explanation...Probably because of the Gospel message and humanity of Jesus.

[Alan Burns]

......  it seems to me that the Jesus walked on water claim is comparable with the undoubted fiction that Noddy lives in Toytown.

I once heard an expert in quantum physics claim that it was possible for a human being to pass through a solid brick wall under certain quantum conditions.  I recall it was on a BBC Horizon program.  So just imagine the possibilities of what can be achieved if quantum events can be interactively controlled by willpower.   (God's willpower).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Firstly people have IMO offered pathways to belief and various process pathways.

No doubt. One day I must share with you my “pathway” to leprechaunism. For now though the problem with personal “pathways” is that they have nothing of epistemic value to say to other people.

In my view instead of offering a ''no that isn't a method'' or even ''no that isn't a method because''. What I find is that were we to examine what you mean by a method we would inexorably come up with science.

Then your view is still wrong. It’s actually logic (of which science is one branch) – and if you want to reject logic then what's left but personal assertion?

There are atheists on this board I seem to recall for whom a resurrection would be proof of God. So there is nothing unusual about Alans position.

Non sequitur. AB’s position is only “unusual” in the sense that there’s no cogent logic to support it.

In this case he has plumped for a divine rather than alien explanation...Probably because of the Gospel message and humanity of Jesus.

And that’s an argumentum ad consequentiam – another logical fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I once heard an expert in quantum physics claim that it was possible for a human being to pass through a solid brick wall under certain quantum conditions.  I recall it was on a BBC Horizon program.  So just imagine the possibilities of what can be achieved if quantum events can be interactively controlled by willpower.   (God's willpower).

Just imagine what we could do with all that gold we’d find at the ends of rainbows (leprechauns’ willpower).

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly people have IMO offered pathways to belief and various process pathways.
In my view instead of offering a ''no that isn't a method'' or even ''no that isn't a method because'' you have made out that they haven't made the effort. What I find is that were we to examine what you mean by a method we would inexorably come up with science.

There are atheists on this board I seem to recall for whom a resurrection would be proof of God. So there is nothing unusual about Alans position.
In this case he has plumped for a divine rather than alien explanation...Probably because of the Gospel message and humanity of Jesus.

And again no, much of what I use to evaluate claims is not science. In particular historic claims. It is naturalistic methodology but it isn't science.
Given that people make claims that they state are beyond a naturalustic methodology, I have merely asked them how they evaluate them.  If you think you have a 'path way' then you need to define what you mean by pathway and why that 'pathway' has any validity beyond yourself.

Are you honestly suggesting that AB has  chosen to frame the resuurection as the supernatural claim because he believes it might be somehow more convincing to some unnamed atheists on the board to make them more impressed with his god whom he actually suspects may be an advanced alien species?

[Nearly Sane]

I once heard an expert in quantum physics claim that it was possible for a human being to pass through a solid brick wall under certain quantum conditions.  I recall it was on a BBC Horizon program.  So just imagine the possibilities of what can be achieved if quantum events can be interactively controlled by willpower.   (God's willpower).

Are you claiming then that your god is merely a sufficiently advanced species? And that there are no supernatural events just natural manipulations that we don't currently comprehend?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just by the by, according to this BBC story a quarter of GB Christians don't think the literal resurrection happened either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

[Nearly Sane]

Just by the by, according to this BBC story a quarter of GB Christians don't think the literal resurrection happened either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

Has its own thread


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13720.msg668822#msg668822

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Has its own thread

Thanks – I hadn’t spotted that.

I’m often struck by the paradox of the historic resurrection story. On the one hand historians don’t think the evidence sufficient for it to be taught as fact, but on the other Christians (well, three-quarters of them at least it seems) will tell you that it’s a knock down fact. What is it I wonder that makes them think they know better than the people whose judgments on historicity they accept in every other respect?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Thanks – I hadn’t spotted that.

I’m often struck by the paradox of the historic resurrection story. On the one hand historians don’t think the evidence sufficient for it to be taught as fact, but on the other Christians (well, three-quarters of them at least it seems) will tell you that it’s a knock down fact. What is it I wonder that makes them think they know better than the people whose judgments on historicity they accept in every other respect?

Again though history as a study is naturalistic methidologically. An historian talking about the resurrection as fact, at least if it is being regarded as a supernatural claim, isn't 'doing' history. Just as science is neutral on supernatural claims,  so is history as a study. No historian should be expressing an opinion on supernatural claims if they are writing speaking as an historian. So I see no paradox.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again though history as a study is naturalistic methidologically. An historian talking about the resurrection as fact, at least if it is being regarded as a supernatural claim, isn't 'doing' history. Just as science is neutral on supernatural claims,  so is history as a study. No historian should be expressing an opinion on supernatural claims if they are writing speaking as an historian. So I see no paradox.

The paradox comes from the arguments some Christians here make for a literal resurrection. If they just said, “my faith is that it happened” then I’d agree with you. Often they don’t though – they attempt to co-opt the tools of academic History to demonstrate their claim. They talk about eye-witness accounts, about records, about the likelihood of mistake etc – all things that historians use routinely.

That’s the point – much as when the religious try to play on Science’s turf they crash and burn, so they do when they play on History’s turf. And yet they’re content to let the same disciplines used by historians determine every other aspect of what is and isn’t taught to their children. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The paradox comes from the arguments some Christians here make for a literal resurrection. If they just said, “my faith is that it happened” then I’d agree with you. Often they don’t though – they attempt to co-opt the tools of academic History to demonstrate their claim. They talk about eye-witness accounts, about records, about the likelihood of mistake etc – all things that historians use routinely.

That’s the point – much as when the religious try to play on Science’s turf they crash and burn, so they do when they play on History’s turf. And yet they’re content to let the same disciplines used by historians determine every other aspect of what is and isn’t taught to their children.

Again no historian doing history should be expressing their opinion on the resurrection. That history uses some processes of analysis as part of its method does not mean that anyone who wants to make supernatural claims cannot use similar processes. It's not the use of these processes that are the issue, it's the lack of anything more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again no historian doing history should be expressing their opinion on the resurrection. That history uses some processes of analysis as part of its method does not mean that anyone who wants to make supernatural claims cannot use similar processes. It's not the use of these processes that are the issue, it's the lack of anything more.

Yes, but they can express their opinions on the quality of the arguments and evidence some make for the historical resurrection. When the religious try to use these things it’s the equivalent of the cartoon with “miracle happens here” in the middle of it. A historian would say, “you need to explain your working here” – which is why the resurrection isn’t taught in history classes.

[Alan Burns]

Are you claiming then that your god is merely a sufficiently advanced species? And that there are no supernatural events just natural manipulations that we don't currently comprehend?

I am claiming that God has the power to intelligently interact with the natural events of this universe to produce desired results.  Humans can do this too.  But the source of this interaction cannot come from advanced material based species because any such action would just be deterministic reaction to natural events.  Any intelligently controlled interaction must come from a source which is not controlled by the deterministic cause and effect scenario of material based entities.  So I have to conclude that any intelligent interaction, be it God's or man's, is sourced from a supernatural event

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am claiming that God has the power to intelligently interact with the natural events of this universe to produce desired results.  Humans can do this too.  But the source of this interaction cannot come from advanced material based species because any such action would just be deterministic reaction to natural events.  Any intelligently controlled interaction must come from a source which is not controlled by the deterministic cause and effect scenario of material based entities.  So I have to conclude that any intelligent interaction, be it God's or man's, is sourced from a supernatural event

Do you even know what the term “circular reasoning” means? Your opening claim and your conclusion are mutually dependent.