Christian 'Mythology'.

[BeRational]

Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.

You should be banned from making this repeated claim, despite many requests for this 'evidence'.

Show the evidence and stop saying it has been produced somewhere years ago!

[Shaker]

Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.

If you want to step outside of what you call 'natural law' (I assume by this you mean methodological naturalism) then we're going to need an appropriate methodology from you to be able to regard it as accurate in what it's supposed to do, i.e. we need a means of being able to know that it's something different to just guessing about stuff.

The floor's all yours.

[Hope]

If you want to step outside of what you call 'natural law' (I assume by this you mean methodological naturalism) then we're going to need an appropriate methodology from you to be able to regard it as accurate in what it's supposed to do, i.e. we need a means of being able to know that it's something different to just guessing about stuff.

The floor's all yours.

Except that, in order to explain such a methodology, one has to use terminology and ideas that go beyond methodological naturalism, thus going outside the realm of the thinking of those for whom MN is the sole arbiter of truth - so that we come back to the same problem; some of us work on a different level of reality to others.

[Shaker]

Except that, in order to explain such a methodology, one has to use terminology and ideas that go beyond methodological naturalism, thus going outside the realm of the thinking of those for whom MN is the sole arbiter of truth - so that we come back to the same problem

Indeed we do - what procedure do you have that validates your alleged method and distinguishes it from simply guessing about stuff?

some of us work on a different level of reality to others.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue:

It's not her job to do that. It's your job to show that the fairy stories in the gospels are true.

but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.

What are they?

[jeremyp]

Not quite sure what you're asking in the latter half of this sentence - but I'm assuming you're asking whether there is anyone who believes everything that's known about Jesus.  OK, what is known about Jesus?  Some would say that we know that he lived as a person sometime around 4BC - 30AD - there seems to be a consensus amongst historians to that effect.  Some would say that he also died a pretty horrific deasth in about 30AD, crucified on a cross.  Again, there seems to be consensus on that.

But the consensus is only that, given the evidence we have, Jesus is more likely to have existed than not. I doubt if you could find a single serious historian who would claim to know Jesus existed.

Its at this point that things become muddied.

If by "muddied" you mean "not credible" I agree.

Did he rise from death?  There would seem to have been an understanding, supported by several hundred people's eyewitness accounts, that he did.

Can you show that several hundred eye witness accounts exist? Can you tell us who the several hundred eye witnesses were and what each of them actually said in their account?

Note that the person who first claimed these several hundred eye witness accounts exist includes his own hallucination amongst them. That's a pretty low bar for an eye witness account.

[floo]

Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue: you've cast doubt on them, claimed that they are impossible from a human perspective, etc., but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.

In your opinion, but you have no proof of that.

[Dicky Underpants]

Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.

We don't have to go down the road of arguing about methodological naturalism - though, as has been pointed out, you have yet to demonstrate any methodology for determining the truth or existence of the supernatural. The Gospels themselves offer many clues about their unreliability as historical records, not least in the huge contradictions they contain. You can of course force yourself to go through any number of verbal contortions to reconcile the irreconcilable, but sometimes the simplest way of getting to grips with certain ancient texts is to accept that some parts of them may contain truth, and other parts are either imaginative fictions or simply downright lies. In the case of the gospels, they may be all downright lies - I certainly don't believe this, but the task is to try and ascertain those bits which may contain nuggets of historical truth.

There is of course the question of moral truth or falsehood that they contain - that is important, but again a matter of debate, not something self-evident for those who claim to have "eyes to see".

[Sassy]

I believe the fact the arrival of Gods Messiah started up with Christ is a clear proof he existed.
It is also a fact that those without faith are not able to see that which the Christ believer sees.

Instead of denying the truth why not seek the truth.
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.

[floo]

I believe the fact the arrival of Gods Messiah started up with Christ is a clear proof he existed.
It is also a fact that those without faith are not able to see that which the Christ believer sees.

Instead of denying the truth why not seek the truth.
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.

NOT A FACT, only a belief for which there is no evidence to support it. The Bible is not evidence 

[Sebastian Toe]

But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.

and therein lies yours.
If Christ be not the Son of God, ............... you have no truth.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.

and therein lies yours.
If Christ be not the Son of God, ............... you have no truth.

Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!

[Nearly Sane]

Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!

No it doesn't, since there is no method that you would use to falsify the statement.

[Walter]

Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!

no, just false!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#137

Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!

No it doesn't, since there is no method that you would use to falsify the statement.

Then you would be wrong.

You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

[torridon]

#137
Then you would be wrong.

You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

There are no such methods.  If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.

[wigginhall]

There are no such methods.  If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.

And ironically, academic history would not touch such a claim with a barge-pole, as it deals with events, not supernatural stuff, except for stating that some people have those beliefs.  But a belief itself is not supernatural.

[wigginhall]

I suppose three methods are available: guessing,  the assertatron, and 'I really really feel it'.   But they are the same thing.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There are no such methods.  If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.

So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?

[Walter]

So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?

ill bet you know of at least one that isn't !

[Gordon]

#137
Then you would be wrong.

You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

Nope - the claim is yours, so you need to explain the method supporting your claim so that others can critique them (both the claim and the method).

[SusanDoris]

So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?

No, and I have not seen any post* here which claims that. As should be well known, scientific Theories are the best information we have at present, they are never 100% proof of anything.

*I might have said as much in my posts, but then I'm so old I shall be mightily surprised if any of the established scientific Theories change before my death.

[Gordon]

So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?

You really don't understand science: any scientific claims are supported by both evidence and the underlying method that provides the content, without at least that then it isn't 'science' and wouldn't get published in peer reviewed journals. Even then, science is always provisional and any claims are subject to review should new evidence, new theories and/or better methods arise.
 

[Shaker]

I suppose three methods are available: guessing,  the assertatron, and 'I really really feel it'.   But they are the same thing.

My next signature, if you don't mind?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, and I have not seen any post* here which claims that. As should be well known, scientific Theories are the best information we have at present, they are never 100% proof of anything.

Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.

One reason I think the inconsistency exists is because there is an inherent assumption (unintentional or otherwise) that everything can be explained scientifically. Such a hypothesis should be falsifiable. It isn't. It's easy to show from the approaches on this forum how the following applies.

Non-theist position: Burden of proof lies with the theist to demonstrate that a criterion for falsification is valid. Usually followed up with being told why the suggested criterion isn't valid. Result: non-theist position isn't falsifiable.

Theist position: Burden of proof lies with the theist to demonstrate that a criterion for falsification of their faith is valid, and how it can be tested. Usually followed up with being told why the criterion and/or test isn't valid. Result: Claims that the theist position is not falsifiable.