The power of prayer

[BashfulAnthony]

How have you, and those you refer to as qualified, addressed the risk that the NT content contains mistakes or lies?

Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.

History is studied in a methodologically naturalistic way.

[jjohnjil]

Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.

And if a biographer told us Henry the 8th rose from the dead three days after he snuffed it, we would take that biography with a pinch of salt.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

No, you were the one making the accusation so the burden of proof was with you. You haven't provided it.

Fool's mate more like.

Accusation?   No, not really;  merely a comment.  This is not some sort of kangaroo court, with everyone trying to score points - and the winner, as he sees it, getting to call the other, "fool," or some such.  It's very silly.   

[BashfulAnthony]

And if a biographer told us Henry the 8th rose from the dead three days after he snuffed it, we would take that biography with a pinch of salt.

Indeed.  But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses.  But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed.  But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses.  But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.

and again history is studied in a methodologicaly naturalistic way.

[Gordon]

Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.

So - can I take it that you agree that there is a risk that the NT contains mistakes or lies?

[BashfulAnthony]

So - can I take it that you agree that there is a risk that the NT contains mistakes or lies?

Yes.

[jjohnjil]

Indeed.  But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses.  But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.

I see.  So if this biographer said there were 2500 witnesses, you would believe it?

I understand why you're a theist now.

[BashfulAnthony]

I see.  So if this biographer said there were 2500 witnesses, you would believe it?

I understand why you're a theist now.

I would assume that there were good grounds to take it seriously and that it was unlikely that there were 2,500 liars knocking about conveniently.  That's why I don't dismiss it out of hand at the very least.  You seem to, so I can see why you are an atheist.

[jeremyp]

I would assume that there were good grounds to take it seriously and that it was unlikely that there were 2,500 liars knocking about conveniently.

It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.

[BashfulAnthony]

It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.

But there wasn't only one person who made the claim.

[jjohnjil]

Indeed.  But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses.  But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.

My old grandma came back to life three weeks ago, BA, and she died in 1954.  There were countless witnesses.  We had a good ol' knees up.

[floo]

It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.

I agree, people can be very gullible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

But there wasn't only one person who made the claim.

How many witnesses claimed to see Mohammed fly to heaven on a winged horse too? Do you accept that claim on the same basis that you accept the resurrection claim?

Why not?

There are so many problems with it that it's hard to know where to begin, but briefly:

1. You have no idea how many witnesses there were because no-one thought it important enough to write down at the time.

2. There are very few records and those that there are were made decades after the event, and they show heavy signs of copying from each other. The Chinese whispers phenomenon alone moreover tells you that huge changes could have been made through the oral tradition in the intervening decades.

3. The event happened at a time when miracle stories were commonplace. The bar for acceptance of such stories as true was very low.

4. There are many non-miraculous possible explanations for the story that you have no means of discounting, and moreover that fit the way the universe is observed to work in every known example except for the resurrection story. The assumption therefore must be heavily weighted towards a naturalistic cause.

5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence bar for the resurrection story is by contrast set astonishingly low - which is why it would never be accepted in a court of law, isn't taught as fact in mainstream schools etc. This should at least give you pause given how much you have riding on it being true.

6. Such (non-contemporaneous) records as there are have been multiply translated and are known to have been edited and doctored in the ensuing centuries.

7. Fooling a crowd with a conjuring trick is no more difficult than fooling one person with the same trick.

8. Etc and wearily etc...

Is any of this beginning at least to sink in yet?

Anything?   

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

How many witnesses claimed to see Mohammed fly to heaven on a winged horse too? Do you accept that claim on the same basis that you accept the resurrection claim?

Why not?

There are so many problems with it that it's hard to know where to begin, but briefly:

1. You have no idea how many witnesses there were because no-one thought it important enough to write down at the time.

2. There are very few records and those that there are were made decades after the event, and they show heavy signs of copying from each other. The Chinese whispers phenomenon alone moreover tells you that huge changes could have been made through the oral tradition in the intervening decades.

3. The event happened at a time when miracle stories were commonplace. The bar for acceptance of such stories as true was very low.

4. There are many non-miraculous possible explanations for the story that you have no means of discounting, and moreover that fit the way the universe is observed to work in every known example except for the resurrection story. The assumption therefore must be heavily weighted towards a naturalistic cause.

5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence bar for the resurrection story is by contrast set astonishingly low - which is why it would never be accepted in a court of law, isn't taught as fact in mainstream schools etc. This should at least give you pause given how much you have riding on it being true.

6. Such (non-contemporaneous) records as there are have been multiply translated and are known to have been edited and doctored in the ensuing centuries.

7. Fooling a crowd with a conjuring trick is no more difficult than fooling one person with the same trick.

8. Etc and wearily etc...

Is any of this beginning at least to sink in yet?

Anything?

The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem.  Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in.  It really is quite alarming.  I am concerned about you, and some others on here, in the grip of an obsession like this.

 Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense.  This whole thing is becoming absurd.  Now you can see why I left for a year or so.  I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem.  Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in.  It really is quite alarming.  I am concerned about you, and some others on her, in the grip of an obsession like this.

 Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense.  This whole thing is becoming absurd.  Now you can see why I left for a year or so.  I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?

Evasion noted. If you don't want to have a bad argument ("there were 2,500 witnesses") challenged, don't post it here. It's simple enough.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Evasion noted. If you don't want to have a bad argument ("there were 2,500 witnesses") challenged, don't post it here. It's simple enough.

See, there you go I simply tire of this intense , almost cross-examination technique.  Isn't there anything on telly tonight?  Drat, there I go, evading again!

[NicholasMarks]

Jesus was crucified and was resurrected after the 3rd day to show those who believed in him and follow his righteous ways, will have access to the same science...it is all part of the mechanics of the universe. Those who don't believe or who actively work in opposition to that science wont achieve the same results.

Jesus said that those who follow him will never die and it all revolves around upbuilding a righteous spirit carved from an indestructible energy. You don't want it...you will not get it...but, we are told, the alternative is grim.

[BashfulAnthony]

My old grandma came back to life three weeks ago, BA, and she died in 1954.  There were countless witnesses.  We had a good ol' knees up.

You may well laugh. I'm not, 'cos it wasn't funny.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem.  Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in.  It really is quite alarming.  I am concerned about you, and some others on here, in the grip of an obsession like this.

 Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense.  This whole thing is becoming absurd.  Now you can see why I left for a year or so.  I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?

Hmmm...I've responded to a post in a similar vein else where BashfulAnthony, so I'll give another angle...

You will no doubt be familiar with the Lord Jesus' many exchanges with the Pharisees, teachers of the Law, etc. Why wouldn't they accept Him as the Messiah? Because their worldview wouldn't allow for Him being the Messiah. They decided that He didn't fit the bill, so it didn't matter what the evidence said, what He did (miracles, healings, etc., their minds were already made up. In short, their worldview was not falsifiable.

Like you, I took a break from posting on these types of forums, but for much longer than a year. I decided to look at how the Lord Jesus tackled the problem. He exposed the flaws in their worldviews and premises. What I learnt also was to apply properties of truth. Truth does not depend on what we think about it. Truth is supported by evidence. A statement can be shown to be true directly, or to be not true by showing that the converse is true.

Where truth cannot be verified directly, it has to be accepted by faith, but as it will be supported by evidence, it is not blind faith. A problem arises when we start deciding in advance what the nature of the evidence must be, so there's one point to address. A second problem arises when we start deciding how the evidence must be handled.

I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again 

[BashfulAnthony]

Hmmm...I've responded to a post in a similar vein else where BashfulAnthony, so I'll give another angle...

You will no doubt be familiar with the Lord Jesus' many exchanges with the Pharisees, teachers of the Law, etc. Why wouldn't they accept Him as the Messiah? Because their worldview wouldn't allow for Him being the Messiah. They decided that He didn't fit the bill, so it didn't matter what the evidence said, what He did (miracles, healings, etc., their minds were already made up. In short, their worldview was not falsifiable.

Like you, I took a break from posting on these types of forums, but for much longer than a year. I decided to look at how the Lord Jesus tackled the problem. He exposed the flaws in their worldviews and premises. What I learnt also was to apply properties of truth. Truth does not depend on what we think about it. Truth is supported by evidence. A statement can be shown to be true directly, or to be not true by showing that the converse is true.

Where truth cannot be verified directly, it has to be accepted by faith, but as it will be supported by evidence, it is not blind faith. A problem arises when we start deciding in advance what the nature of the evidence must be, so there's one point to address. A second problem arises when we start deciding how the evidence must be handled.

I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again 

All I can add is that I am staggered at the closed-mindedness on here.  They do not simply doubt; they are furiously determined not to give ground in their unbelief. Why, I don't know.  As Jesus said to Thomas, "...blessed are those who have not seen me, yet believe."

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

All I can add is that I am staggered at the closed-mindedness on here.  They do not simply doubt; they are furiously determined not to give ground in their unbelief. Why, I don't know.  As Jesus said to Thomas, "...blessed are those who have not seen me, yet believe."

They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.

I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time! If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith. That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.

The faith necessary for belief in God is no different, except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias. So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief. It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.

[NicholasMarks]

They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.

I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time! If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith. That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.

The faith necessary for belief in God is no different, except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias. So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief. It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.

I like your reasoning there SwordOfTheSpirit...I wished I had thought of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

See, there you go I simply tire of this intense , almost cross-examination technique.  Isn't there anything on telly tonight?  Drat, there I go, evading again!

Post a fallacious argument and it will be "cross examined". Why does this upset you so? If I did it and was corrected I'd be delighted - that way I'd have learned something.