Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walter]

But just because Paul wrote it down doesn't mean it is true.

ah but he used his Parker pen he got for Christmas

[floo]

ah but he used his Parker pen he got for Christmas

In which case it must have all been true!

[ippy]

The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed. For example, the first account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 could have been given to Luke by Ananias himself, judging from the inclusion of details such as 'Straight Street' (9:11). The second in ch.22 could have come from the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem. Luke seems to have been given details such as Paul being bound with two chains (v33) - the source probably was not Paul himself, which would account for variations from Paul's own account in Galatians.

'The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed'.

Well they would do to you Spud now see if you can find some irrefutable evidence to support the veracity of the said accounts?

You're in for a long job there Spud, if you could admit it to yourself.

Regards ippy

[Spud]

'The reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed'.

Well they would do to you Spud now see if you can find some irrefutable evidence to support the veracity of the said accounts?

You're in for a long job there Spud, if you could admit it to yourself.

Regards ippy

Ippy,

Do you believe that after a person dies, there is no afterlife at all? (I think this is called annihilationism). I'm guessing you will answer yes. Now Ippy if you have irrefutable evidence for this, we can all ignore the Bible and live happily ever after. The fact that the body decomposes points towards this, but is that irrefutable evidence?

If someone died and found himself in some kind of conscious state, he might be able to send a message back to us. But then he might not be able to. So we cannot know - although some people would claim to have contacted someone's ghost after their death.

What I'm getting at is, there doesn't seem to be irrefutable evidence for either yours or my position, and so whichever we decide to believe (afterlife or no afterlife) will be a position of faith.

So to restate my main question: is the decomposition of the brain proof that there is no afterlife? If not then what is wrong with believing some reports in the Bible of life after death - if those reports have passed the tests for genuine authenticity?

[Nearly Sane]

Ippy,

Do you believe that after a person dies, there is no afterlife at all? (I think this is called annihilationism). I'm guessing you will answer yes. Now Ippy if you have irrefutable evidence for this, we can all ignore the Bible and live happily ever after. The fact that the body decomposes points towards this, but is that irrefutable evidence?

If someone died and found himself in some kind of conscious state, he might be able to send a message back to us. But then he might not be able to. So we cannot know - although some people would claim to have contacted someone's ghost after their death.

What I'm getting at is, there doesn't seem to be irrefutable evidence for either position, and so whichever we decide to believe (afterlife or no afterlife) will be a position of faith.

So to restate my main question: is the decomposition of the brain proof that there is no afterlife? If not then what is wrong with believing some reports in the Bible of life after death - reports that have passed the tests for genuine authenticity?

Your claim, your burden of proof. The NPF rides again!

[Spud]

Your claim, your burden of proof. The NPF rides again!

I'm not claiming anything, in fact I admitted that there isn't irrefutable evidence for my position the veracity of the said accounts. Thus me saying "the reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed" is acceptable.

[Spud]

There might not be irrefutable evidence for an afterlife, but there is not irrefutable evidence that there is no afterlife either. The only way we could know the latter is by actually dying, and then we would not be able to discuss it here!

[Nearly Sane]

There might not be irrefutable evidence for an afterlife, but there is not irrefutable evidence that there is no afterlife either. The only way we could know the latter is by actually dying, and then we would not be able to discuss it here!

Again your claim your burden of proof and no one has asked for your evidence to be irrefutable.

[floo]

There might not be irrefutable evidence for an afterlife, but there is not irrefutable evidence that there is no afterlife either. The only way we could know the latter is by actually dying, and then we would not be able to discuss it here!

I agree. As there is no irrefutable proof either way, it would be more than unjust if there are dire consequences for not believing in a god or afterlife.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not claiming anything, in fact I admitted that there isn't irrefutable evidence for my position the veracity of the said accounts. Thus me saying "the reports in Acts seem to be genuine and detailed" is acceptable.

Your position is your claim. Which makes your above statement gibberish.

[Spud]

Again your claim your burden of proof and no one has asked for your evidence to be irrefutable.

Have you read ippys original question, Mr administrator?

Your position is your claim. Which makes your above statement gibberish.

Which is why I edited it.

[Nearly Sane]

Have you read ippys original question, Mr administrator?
Which is why I edited it.

Which is why it names no sense, you cannot claim something and it not be a position.

And yes, my apologies, ippy has asked for a piece of nonsense

[Spud]

I agree. As there is no irrefutable proof either way, it would be more than unjust if there are dire consequences for not believing in a god or afterlife.

I'd argue as Paul does in Romans 1 that there is proof for God, hence the saying, "he is a God-fearing man". Proof of an afterlife would have to be given us.

[Maeght]

What proof?

[floo]

I'd argue as Paul does in Romans 1 that there is proof for God, hence the saying, "he is a God-fearing man". Proof of an afterlife would have to be given us.

That isn't proof.

[ippy]

Your claim, your burden of proof. The NPF rides again!

Here we go again, I'm not bringing up an idea that we go into some kind of afterlife when we die, you and your lot are always banging on about the various ideas you have about this hereafter idea of yours, please note all you and yours ideas not mine, I don't nor have I ever suggested any such thing as an afterlife, in fact I haven't suggested any kind of afterlife for or against, so it's your idea your problem not mine.

Why do you seem to have so much trouble understanding N P F Spud,when it's been explained so fully, so clearly and so many times?

Kind regards ippy.

[Spud]

What proof?

Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.
Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.
That's the proof.
For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/moon-orbit.php

[Spud]

That isn't proof.

Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.

[Maeght]

Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.

As I said before, they would say that wouldn't they. You aren't seriously suggesting that as proof are you?

Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.

Are you referring to the Big Bang, Abiogenesis or evolution. You seem a little confused.

That's the proof

Can't see any proof of God there.

For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/moon-orbit.php

One creationist website tries to show this. Since we don't know exactly how the Moon formed this seems a bit odd, also rather irrelevant. Are you saying the proof if God is that we have a moon?

Is that really the best you can offer as proof? Very disapppointed.

[Maeght]

Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.

Why should we ought to know?

[Gordon]

Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.

Nope - it just claims that, Spud, and these claims are indistinguishable from fiction: so not to be taken seriously.
 

Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.

Ah the old entropy bollocks - you need to stay away from creationist sites.

That's the proof.

Proof only that creationism is nonsense.
 

For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/moon-orbit.php

Have you run this amateur-hour Javascript game past someone who knows something of the science to check that it is accurate?

[floo]

Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god, the Bible isn't evidence. That book appears to be a very creative work by its very human authors, who let their imaginations have full rein.

[ippy]

Whilst we are accountable for our actions because we know, or at least ought to know, that God exists, God would have to demonstrate to us that there is an afterlife. That is what Paul's conversion experience was: God demonstrating to him that there is an afterlife.
From near the beginning of time God did demonstrate that, as Genesis tells us about Him taking Enoch without him experiencing death.

Why do you think the Bible proves the Bible Spud, that's a potty idea, surely you would need to establish the bible is full of facts first and if you could do that and only if you could, which is unlikely, then you could present as though the bible proves all sorts of things as facts.

Spud, you must know unless you live in a vacuum somewhere that much as you love this bible of yours no one has yet been able to prove it's all been put together as a collection of actual factual happenings, especially the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it. 

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Romans 1:19-20 assumes the existence of God on the basis that "everything...has been made"; it details the qualities of the God who made everything: eternal power, divine nature.

It assumes the existence go God? I detect begging the question.

Now if you want to claim that everything came into existence by chance, you go against the principle of entropy; something must have enabled order to proceed from chaos.

I look forward to seeing your paper that proves this. It's sure to get you the Nobel Prize. The Big Bang, by the way was a state of extremely low entropy. It's perfectly possible for the Universe to have come from the Big Bang with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know, but then again, your god is a massive violation of 2LTD and your glossing over that problem is somewhat dishonest.

For example, it has been demonstrated to be impossible for the moon to reach its present orbit through any natural event, such as the capture theory or the comet collision theory. These would both result in different outcomes to a steady orbit.

No it hasn't. Current computer models suggest the collision theory is perfectly plausible.

Your lin k is completely hilarious. I tried the default setting and the comet just bounced off the Earth, as if that would really happen. The model is pathetically stupid.

Please, when you are talking about science, get your information from scientists, not creationists. The creationists really don't know what they are talking about.

[Spud]

I look forward to seeing your paper that proves this. It's sure to get you the Nobel Prize. The Big Bang, by the way was a state of extremely low entropy. It's perfectly possible for the Universe to have come from the Big Bang with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know, but then again, your god is a massive violation of 2LTD and your glossing over that problem is somewhat dishonest.

If the big bang was anything like the one that woke me up last night, then it was a state of high entropy. Otherwise it needs a different name.
Other examples include the evolution fallacy (observed microevolution implies macroevolution). Genetic mutation always leads to a decrease in overall viability even though it allows adaptation to a specific environment.

Re the moon, try a launch angle from space of -14 and a force of 4. This was the closest I could get to the near circular orbit of our moon, but it gives an elliptical orbit with it being either really close to or far from the earth. I will try again with the collision option.