Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really, Am I specially pleading, not sure since we are left with two alternatives, a reason why there is something rather than nothing and  nothing.

Of course you are special pleading - you are saying that everything is contingent - which lead to infinite regress. You then get out of this by special pleading - aha, everything is created and therefore contingent, except for the thing I have decided (without evidence) isn't created. Classic special pleading.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really, Am I specially pleading, not sure since we are left with two alternatives, a reason why there is something rather than nothing and  nothing.

In terms of evidence, there is ample evidence of contingency but non for things that are not contingent.

Everything else then is argument.

Illogical? It's you who has been flying the flag for a nothing and as far as I can tell suspending the principle of sufficient reason at a certain point. Now THAT'S what I call special pleading.
Once again plenty of evidence for contingency
None for non contingency. That is done through philosophical argument.

You haven't established that there are 2 alternatives, you have asserted it. Just like you have asserted that things need a cause, and that one thing doesn't need a cause. That you do those last two is logically contradictory.

I don't accept that the 'principle of sufficient reason' can be a derived absolute rule. You do, except when you don't.

I don't think that questioning whether nothing is a logically coherent idea is in any sense 'flying the flag for nothing'.

[ProfessorDavey]

... not sure since we are left with two alternatives, a reason why there is something rather than nothing and  nothing.

I don't agree with your dichotomy.

Again you suffer by definition - what do you mean by a reason - do you mean a mechanism or a purpose. People tend to use a reason in the latter sense. So it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that something may exist, but there is no purpose for its existence - it just exists. Why isn't that a possibility Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't established that there are 2 alternatives, you have asserted it. Just like you have asserted that things need a cause, and that one thing doesn't need a cause. That you do those last two is logically contradictory.

I don't accept that the 'principle of sufficient reason' can be a derived absolute rule. You do, except when you don't.

I don't think that questioning whether nothing is a logically coherent idea is in any sense 'flying the flag for nothing'.

I just have to suggest a minimum of 2 alternatives to avoid special pleading.
You seem to be shifting goalposts.

[Nearly Sane]

I just have to suggest a minimum of 2 alternatives to avoid special pleading.
You seem to be shifting goalposts.

No, to avoid special pleading you cannot suggest using a rule and then discarding it for the sake of your argument.

Which goalposts do you think I have shifted, and why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course you are special pleading - you are saying that everything is contingent - which lead to infinite regress. You then get out of this by special pleading - aha, everything is created and therefore contingent, except for the thing I have decided (without evidence) isn't created. Classic special pleading.

No I am not saying everything is contingent. That would be absurd.

Any progress on evidencing a non contingent thing yet?

[Gordon]

No I am not saying everything is contingent. That would be absurd.

Any progress on evidencing a non contingent thing yet?

Hang on a minute - isn't that your claim to defend?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, to avoid special pleading you cannot suggest using a rule and then discarding it for the sake of your argument.

Which goalposts do you think I have shifted, and why?

The prime rule here is that contingent things are contingent on something else. I propose an ultimate entity on which everything contingent is contingent on without that entity being contingent on anything itself.
I am not saying therefore that everything is contingent.
Davey will eventually release that he is arguing that "nature" is that very entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I am not saying everything is contingent. That would be absurd.

But I thought your argument was that everything was contingent ... except god. Which is, of course, gross special pleading. Now of course we have no evidence that god actually exists, but presuming that god does exist show your workings (without special pleading) that god cannot be contingent when everything else must be.

[Nearly Sane]

The prime rule here is that contingent things are contingent on something else. I propose an ultimate entity on which everything contingent is contingent on without that entity being contingent on anything itself.
I am not saying therefore that everything is contingent.
Davey will eventually release that he is arguing that "nature" is that very entity.

Thank you for writing out your special pleading.

Oh and you said I was shifting goalposts. I asked you to outline what ones and why. You didn't answer. Do I take it that you are dropping the statement?

[ProfessorDavey]

The prime rule here is that contingent things are contingent on something else. I propose an ultimate entity on which everything contingent is contingent on without that entity being contingent on anything itself.

But that is mere special pleading to avoid infinite regress. And even if your argument were valid, then why should that non-contingent thing be god. Alternatively god might exist but be contingent on that non-contingent thing that is not god. Or god may not exist and therefore the non-contingent this isn't god.

But of course we can also argue that there is no non-contingent entity and that the universe operates as a network in which all components are co-dependent on each other with none non-contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that is mere special pleading to avoid infinite regress. And even if your argument were valid, then why should that non-contingent thing be god. Alternatively god might exist but be contingent on that non-contingent thing that is not god. Or god may not exist and therefore the non-contingent this isn't god.

But of course we can also argue that there is no non-contingent entity and that the universe operates as a network in which all components are co-dependent on each other with none non-contingent.

That it does not lead to an infinite regress is obvious.
That it is a ploy to avoid it or that is all it does is incorrect.
It avoids the absurdity of having contingency.without necessity.

Only the suggestion that everything is contingent creates an infinite regress. I'm not suggesting everything is so I don't have to create something to avoid what I haven't created as Gordon suggests

[Outrider]

The prime rule here is that contingent things are contingent on something else. I propose an ultimate entity on which everything contingent is contingent on without that entity being contingent on anything itself.

What is different about that nature of that thing that it isn't contingent? Why does it need to be not contingent upon something for the account to work?

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Agreed, Luke is more refined; Matthew is more plain. If Matthew is found to be primary, this raises the question, why, if these miracles had been made up, are they so plain in their original form (Matthew) and not more ornate and flamboyant?

You seem to agree that the phrases 'to the paralytic' and 'pick up your bed' in Mark 2:9 are redundant - that's a step further than JP has come.

Are you then suggesting that Mark wrote first and that these redundancies were introduced later by scribal error? Okay, but then you have to postulate some unknown source, either verbal or written, for the original Mark. Why not instead postulate Matthew as the source and Mark as the copier?

No, I'm just conceding they might be considered 'awkward', but even as they stand, Mark's rough style is quite adequate to explain this. Nothing to get your knickers in a twist over. But the word 'joyful', present in Matthew's Resurrection account mentioned above, but absent in Mark - now that is really significant.

[Maeght]

The minor details (names, places etc) wouldn't have survived years of oral circulation of the stories.

You don't know that. I would think however that it depends to some extent on how long the oral tradition lasted and what other written sources there were, and which of those were used as sources for the Gospels that we see now.

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't know that. I would think however that it depends to some extent on how long the oral tradition lasted and what other written sources there were, and which of those were used as sources for the Gospels that we see now.

This actually something that make me really suspicious - there is frankly too much detail for this to have started off by oral tradition.

A good example is that the gospels are stuffed with claimed direct quotes - Jesus said this, Herod said that, Peter said the other, an angel said something else - all with claimed direct quotes. Who on earth was recording these direct quotes - this isn't something possible under oral tradition. No-one remembers word for word what is said in a conversation, although they might remember the general gist of the conversation. Yet we are led to believe that we have all these direct quotes. Now the only way this is plausible would be if someone were present diligently recording everything that was said. Who was this, noting that person would need to be present at times when the narrative suggests there were just two people alone together.

It simply beggars belief that this is possible, leading to the only plausible conclusion - that the direct quotes are made up. Jesus never actually said this, Herod never actually said that, Peter never actually said the other, an angel never actually said something else. These are all made up for narrative effect by later authors. And if these direct quotes are made up, why not all sorts of other claimed details (most of which can never be verified anyhow).

The level of detail seems to me to be clear evidence that the gospels are largely fictional narratives, even if based on real people and events that may have some basis in fact.

[Spud]

Mark's rough style is quite adequate to explain this.

We can be more specific than that. Matthew tells us exactly what was said in the dialogue. Mark has lifted the two phrases out of their proper contexts (as given by Matthew) and duplicated them further forwards. Since one of them ("to the paralytic") belongs to the words spoken by the narrator (he said to the paralytic), we can deduce that his source must have been written rather than oral tradition.
The other phrase, "pick up your mat" belongs with "and go home". It doesn't belong in the middle of "get up and walk". So the only logical conclusion is that Mark got that part of the story from Matthew.
Clearly he has also got the details about letting the man through the roof, from Luke.

[ProfessorDavey]

We can be more specific than that. Matthew tells us exactly what was said in the dialogue.

See my post above - the detail on the dialogue is clear evidence to me that this detail is made up by a later author. Who on earth would have been recording accurately what Jesus said to some local person, or what an angel said to a shepherd, or what Herod said to a King, or what a servant girl said to Peter. All of these are written in the narrative as claimed direct quotes.

[Spud]

See my post above - the detail on the dialogue is clear evidence to me that this detail is made up by a later author. Who on earth would have been recording accurately what Jesus said to some local person, or what an angel said to a shepherd, or what Herod said to a King, or what a servant girl said to Peter. All of these are written in the narrative as claimed direct quotes.

When you say made up, are you implying it is fiction or would you agree it was composed by someone, in which case it could be based on dialogue that took place?

[jeremyp]

I'd contend that we can tell when something has been woven in. How about in Matthew 28, when the women are suddenly greeted by Jesus? This is odd, as it follows straight on from the angel's message to the women about going to Galilee, which Jesus essentially repeats.

Also why would they be told by the angel that they would see him in Galilee, and then see him a few minutes later? These verses (Mt 28:9-10) must have been inserted into the original text.

The message the angels gave to the women was for the disciples. Thus the meeting is not odd, because the disciples still haven't met him. Since the whole text is essentially a story, one part is either an insertion as you suggest, or the repetition is for a literary effect.

[jeremyp]

The minor details (names, places etc) wouldn't have survived years of oral circulation of the stories.

Why not?

[jeremyp]

We can be more specific than that. Matthew tells us exactly what was said in the dialogue. Mark has lifted the two phrases out of their proper contexts (as given by Matthew) and duplicated them further forwards. Since one of them ("to the paralytic") belongs to the words spoken by the narrator (he said to the paralytic), we can deduce that his source must have been written rather than oral tradition.
The other phrase, "pick up your mat" belongs with "and go home". It doesn't belong in the middle of "get up and walk". So the only logical conclusion is that Mark got that part of the story from Matthew.
Clearly he has also got the details about letting the man through the roof, from Luke.

We've been through this once already. You are completely wrong about that conversation.

[Dicky Underpants]

When you say made up, are you implying it is fiction or would you agree it was composed by someone, in which case it could be based on dialogue that took place?

Well, as for accurate reporting of supposed dialogues, I'm just wondering how good Pontius Pilate's Aramaic was. He addressed a crowd who understood him, asking them to choose between Jesus and Barabbas. And he had a conversation with Jesus. It's just possible that Jesus spoke a bit of Greek (or even Latin) I suppose, so maybe that conversation took place in one of those languages.
Hang about, though - Jesus was God Incarnate, so he could speak and understand all languages!

And of course, the evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who made sure the events they recorded were true/sarcasm.

You see, once you start bringing supernatural elements into the matter, you don't really need to make any arguments about what can reasonably deduced as historical truth.

[Spud]

The message the angels gave to the women was for the disciples. Thus the meeting is not odd, because the disciples still haven't met him. Since the whole text is essentially a story, one part is either an insertion as you suggest, or the repetition is for a literary effect.

Yes, I wondered whether the women were included in the angel's instructions or not. The appearance of Jesus to the two Marys in Matthew may come from the same tradition as the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in John. They both mention clinging on to him, and he calls the disciples his brothers, in both.

[Spud]

We've been through this once already. You are completely wrong about that conversation.

Thank you for making me look at it again, and I've just realised that Mark probably duplicated 'to the paralytic' (Mk 2:9) from Mk 2:5, "when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, 'your sins are forgiven '".