Apologetics Thread!!!

lugha · 27-10-2009 02:13AM

PDN wrote: »

My point was that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point will alter one's views of what is plausible.

Again I note my starting point which is that some Christians argue that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the probable explanation (as a historical fact) of the pertaining evidence. Thus an argument for the veracity of Christianity may logically start here, even though this is obviously not the first of the miracles attributed to Jesus. And like any argument, if it is to avoid circular logic, it must begin by acknowledging that all of its claims are initially just conjectures, and thereafter proceed to establish a credible case for each claim. The obvious starting position (you choose to call it the atheist position, I don't) is that we have the nature world and its rigid, invariant laws and no known supernatural forces or phenomena. The Christian apologist must make the case that an omnipotent being exists, who can, does and did manipulate (for want of a better word) these laws. If you permit, as your make your argument, that there may be an omnipotent God, then you are appealing to the conclusion of your argument to help you make it. That is circular logic.
But lets leave that problem aside and let me permit that the resurrection was possible. Was is likely?
I think it is useful to change the context of the question of the resurrection and consider the following. Imagine contemporary media reports of a primitive tribe in some part of the globe that report that one of their number has being resurrected from the dead, and you are assessing the credibility of this claim. I fully expect you would take the equivalent of what you call the atheist starting point and would probably deem the claim unworthy of assessing. You would I suggest, say that such things do not happen, there is nothing here worthy of serious consideration. (If you do not take this view, then you presumably spend an inordinate amount of time evaluating Elvis sightings, Alien abductions, ghost hunters, spirituals mediums and psychics etc.) However, suppose you were to consider a modern day resurrection, just as I might take what you might feel is a more open minded view on the resurrection of Christ and thus admit the possibility of an omnipotent being for consideration. Isn't there still, as had being pointed out, plenty of more mundane possible explanations? Mistaken identify? Deception (by the witnesses or possibly those who took their testimonies)? A curious medical, coma like event? And even if you cannot identify a cause, strange things do happen. I suspect (?) you do not accept the various Marian apparitions recognized by the Catholic church? But my understanding is that many of the witnesses to these were adamant about what they saw, and remained so throughout their life.

PDN · 27-10-2009 02:16AM

lugha wrote: »

The obvious starting position (you choose to call it the atheist position, I don't) is that we have the nature world and its rigid, invariant laws and no known supernatural forces or phenomena.

Obvious to who? Obvious to you and those who share your presuppositions, but not obvious to most people.

monosharp · 27-10-2009 02:39AM

Okay my problem with the crucifixion and resurrection.

1. Resurrection as a defining religious belief is not new, the idea was quite old before Christianity so if your 'creating' a religion, resurrection is a basic requirement at this time.

2. Jesus/God died, to save us from Jesus/God. Whatever kind of spin you put on it thats what it comes down to. It just doesn't sit well with me.

3. I don't see Jesus' death as that big a deal. So he died ? So what ? Millions of people have died, you could take out a history book and come up with thousands of people who have sacrificed themselves in far more gruesome ways then crucifixion. But the way people try to portray it is as the worst possible suffering anyone could endure. Granted it was the worst the Roman Empire could come up with as an official execution but that means very little.

In that time and society people were probably very fearful of crucifixion so naturally they seen it as the 'worst' way to go.

What exactly was so important here ?

4. Proof, or rather the lack thereof. We basically have the word of religious people written at minimum 50 years after the incident and thats it. We have no references that I am aware of.

Let me give you one example of a commonly held 'belief' that is just plain wrong. The battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

Ask just about anyone thats not a historian what numbers were on both sides and they will throw up 1,000,000 Persians against 300 Spartans. A commonly held belief, a nice story but completely false.

And we have many sources for these numbers.

On the Persians total army (not the army at Thermopylae, but the total number of troops on land and sea).
Herodotus claimed that there were, in total, 2.5 million military personnel, accompanied by an equivalent number of support personnel.
The poet Simonides, who was a near-contemporary, talks of four million.
Ctesias gave 800,000 as the total number of the army that was assembled by Xerxes.

On the Greeks you have a total of about 5000 to 8000 (at Thermopylae) depending on whose sources you believe made up from around 13 different city states.

The numbers in the battle among many things are hotly debated and we have a huge amount of evidence including many references from both sides of the war, Greek and Persian.

This is why I can't take the Bible as a historically accurate document.

chozometroid · 27-10-2009 02:46AM

Morbert wrote: »

We're used to the natural laws being invariant. This assumption not only allows us to make sense of the world, but it has great efficacy: The assumption actually tells us what to expect, and has been affirmed by countless scientific tests. It is a trustworthy assumption (call it faith if you must. It makes no difference to me), even though we cannot be certain it is true.

The resurrection clearly violates this assumption. This doesn't mean we declare the resurrection to be "impossible", but it does mean we are very suspicious of the resurrection, and while the Biblical account certainly demands attention, we will ask for strong evidence before we relax the assumption mentioned above, which is perfectly sensible.

When I discuss the issue of the resurrection directly with Christians, they (normally) tend to take one of two attitudes. The first is to claim that historical evidence clearly points to the resurrection, and that to deny it is unreasonable. The second is to claim that it would have been "too easy" if Jesus had left clear evidence that he rose from the dead. There would be no need to take a "leap of faith" which would be bad. Both viewpoints confuse me. But this is ultimately beside the point.

Certainly natural laws(though not actual laws) are invariant. God made the universe and He had to make it work, so things do what things should do. God wants us to be able to actually live in a state of peace and go about some sort of healthy routine in our lives while learning, observing, and being able to trust our own senses (not saying they are infallible).
However, allowing for the supernatural does not necessitate our reality being one of chaos. It's only if you don't believe in God that you will find there to be a "violation" of what is normal. It's the same with any situation where something is or is not involved. If something "unknown" is involved, then something "known" will always take the credit for the effects of the "unknown." Now, some of us believe this "unknown" is in fact, a "known" and give it the credit it deserves.
I know this is a bit off the topic of the resurrection, because it does not address the actual evidence of the event, but it's something I wanted to point out.

I think the main problem most atheists have with Christianity is the lack of Christ in their lives. Christianity makes claims about a personal God, and if that God does not get personal with us then there is some predictable skepticism. The response to this concern is usually along the lines of "You're not looking hard enough." or "God is absent because you have sinned against Him." or "Keep searching with your heart and you will eventually find Him.", which doesn't really help with the concern. It is one thing if we are dealing with an atheist who doesn't want to believe (an anti-theist like Hitchens, for example). But if someone is genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God, but sees no sign of that God, then Christianity will be lost to them, and no amount of apologetics will change that.

Now, this passage is a bit saddening to me. I wonder if this truly is the case, what you say about the problem being "a lack of Christ in their lives." I certainly have a hard time believing, or accepting, that someone who is "genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God" not seeing any sign of God. I have to wonder if being open to the idea is really what it takes. Not all religous folk believe in God just because they are enthusiastic about the idea of a loving God. Perhaps the seed was not sown in the right soil, as the parable goes.

Matthew 13
3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

(The meaning follows....)
18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Morbert · 27-10-2009 03:11AM

The violation I was referring to was the uniformity of the laws of motion in the universe, such as those governing potassium ions in Jesus's brain. They would have to temporarily change in order for Jesus to spring to life without any potential difference (voltage) across his brain. And while relaxing the assumption doesn't imply chaos, the repeated affirmation of the assumption and its efficacy means atheists are going to look for strong evidence if it is challenged.

chozometroid wrote: »

Now, this passage is a bit saddening to me. I wonder if this truly is the case, what you say about the problem being "a lack of Christ in their lives." I certainly have a hard time believing, or accepting, that someone who is "genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God" not seeing any sign of God. I have to wonder if being open to the idea is really what it takes. Not all religous folk believe in God just because they are enthusiastic about the idea of a loving God. Perhaps the seed was not sown in the right soil, as the parable goes.

[edit]-Upon initially reading the parable I thought it was placing the blame on the preachers of the gospel, but that might be a misreading. Either way, the parable seems to be addressed to people who are already Christians. It is a way of saying "you can't win 'em all." perhaps. It's a nice story but does little to engage with atheist concerns.

Soul Winner · 27-10-2009 03:24AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

OK I think I should interject at this point. Is there anyone here that objects to the Gospels as being accurate historical accounts of what the historical Jesus said and did going to give us an example of what they consider to be an accurate historical account of anything in the ancient world? And if so why do you think that it is an accurate account? What criteria has it passed in order for you to come to that conclusion?

Permabear · 27-10-2009 03:27AM

This post has been deleted.

monosharp · 27-10-2009 04:12AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK I think I should interject at this point. Is there anyone here that objects to the Gospels as being accurate historical accounts of what the historical Jesus said and did going to give us an example of what they consider to be an accurate historical account of anything in the ancient world? And if so why do you think that it is an accurate account? What criteria has it passed in order for you to come to that conclusion?

You need to define accurate here.

Well I'll go with the life of Gaius Julius Caesar as what I consider a reliable historical account but again, you must define what you mean by accurate. While I am using Caesar as my example there are many aspects of his life which we are unsure of or which are very suspect.

What can we be absolutely certain of ? General information.
What can we be 'relatively' certain of ? Quite a lot.
What is hotly debated among historians ? Much more.

Lets deal with the absolute certain first.

There was a man named Gaius Julius Caesar who was a Roman military and political leader. He was involved in political alliances which dominated and controlled Roman politics for years. Caesars military campaigns in Gaul and Britain brought him unrivaled military power and political issues in Rome eventually led to a stand-off between Caesar and Pompey who sided with the Senate. This led to the Roman Republics civil war and Caesar emerged as the absolute leader of the Roman Republic/Empire.

After assuming control of the politics in Rome, he began extensive reforms of Roman society and government. He was eventually proclaimed "dictator in perpetuity" (dictator perpetuo) which was a new title but based on an old Republic title which was a temporary role. A group of Senators led by Marcus Junius Brutus assassinated Caesar in hopes of restoring the Republic.

This information is 'absolutely certain' based on various sources and references including;

Caesar's own Commentarii on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo.

What are we relatively certain of ?

The details of his campaigns in Gaul and the history he recorded about the ancient Gauls and other peoples he encountered. (Some aspects are no so certain, see below)
The dates of various things including his birth/death, rise to power, the Roman civil war etc.
The more specific details of his life including his early career, his family and their roles, the actual interpretation of his name etc.

Whats hotly debated ?
What you might expect, his character, his health, his assassination etc.

Is that a satisfactory answer ?

Soul Winner · 27-10-2009 04:22AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good response.

For one, Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. Nor is it claimed in the New Testament that He naturally rose from he dead. Every account of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament states that ‘God’ raised Jesus from the dead. Now I know what you will say to this. That Jesus was God and therefore raised Himself. But the New Testament says that Jesus (The Word made flesh) emptied Himself of His power (Philippians 2:7) thus rendering Himself incapable of raising Himself and therefore trusted that the Father would raise Him according to His promise to Him (Acts 2:24). The Father who He consistently made reference to as being separate from Himself although of the same essence as Himself. "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 for example, yet "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36. The two are holding down separate roles. So if the account in Matthew was unhistorical and only showed what the later Church would have you believe about the deity and divinity of Christ, then why does this verse in Matthew limit Christ in His knowing of future events? This is one of many verses that gives credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding Jesus. If they were later fabrications invented by the early church then they would not have limited Jesus in this way, hence giving credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

Plus you call the eyewitnesses accounts "Dubious". But what I want to know is why they are dubious? What criteria have they failed in order to be regarded as valid eyewitness’s accounts? And can you give me an example of a valid eyewitness account to any accepted ancient historical event? And if so, to explain why that example is a good example but the Gospel accounts are bad examples.

Soul Winner · 27-10-2009 04:39AM

monosharp wrote: »

Lets deal with the absolute certain first.

There was a man named Gaius Julius Caesar who was a Roman military and political leader. He was involved in political alliances which dominated and controlled Roman politics for years. Caesars military campaigns in Gaul and Britain brought him unrivaled military power and political issues in Rome eventually led to a stand-off between Caesar and Pompey who sided with the Senate. This led to the Roman Republics civil war and Caesar emerged as the absolute leader of the Roman Republic/Empire.

After assuming control of the politics in Rome, he began extensive reforms of Roman society and government. He was eventually proclaimed "dictator in perpetuity" (dictator perpetuo) which was a new title but based on an old Republic title which was a temporary role. A group of Senators led by Marcus Junius Brutus assassinated Caesar in hopes of restoring the Republic.

This information is 'absolutely certain' based on various sources and references including;

Caesar's own Commentarii on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo.

So you are going by eyewitness testimony then? The question I want to know is why are these accounts MORE accurate historical accounts of the life of Caesar than the Gospel accounts are of Jesus? Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? And was his crossing due to a supernatural apparition?

monosharp · 27-10-2009 04:43AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

That Jesus was God and therefore raised Himself. But the New Testament says that Jesus (The Word made flesh) emptied Himself of His power (Philippians 2:7) thus rendering Himself incapable of raising Himself and therefore trusted that the Father would raise Him according to His promise to Him (Acts 2:24). The Father who He consistently made reference to as being separate from Himself although of the same essence as Himself. "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 for example, yet "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36. The two are holding down separate roles. So if the account in Matthew was unhistorical and only showed what the later Church would have you believe about the deity and divinity of Christ, then why does this verse in Matthew limit Christ in His knowing of future events? This is one of many verses that gives credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding Jesus. If they were later fabrications invented by the early church then they would not have limited Jesus in this way, hence giving credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

You are authenticating information in a religious text using information in a religious text, the same religious text to be precise. Don't you see our issue with that ?

Plus you call the eyewitnesses accounts "Dubious". But what I want to know is why they are dubious? What criteria have they failed in order to be regarded as valid eyewitness’s accounts?

Because they are eyewitness accounts of people in the religion who are only important because of their eyewitness accounts written down by someone else equally as unknown who is also in that religion.

And can you give me an example of a valid eyewitness account to any accepted ancient historical account? And if so, to explain why that example is a good example but the Gospel accounts are bad examples.

Are you changing the terms now ? You asked for a historical account before, now its an eyewitness account ?

monosharp · 27-10-2009 04:50AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you are going by eyewitness testimony then?

More or less.

The question I want to know is why are these accounts MORE accurate historical accounts of the life of Caesar than the Gospel accounts are of Jesus?

Because there are many different sources written by many different people with many different opinions.

Everyone who 'eye witnessed' Jesus was a nobody before it, eye witnessed it, then became a nobody again. They all were part of the religion and were followers of Jesus. The writer of these 'eye witness accounts' is also unknown and not backed up by anything.

The people talking about Caesar are also very famous for their writings, themselves backed up by primary references from others and so on. They also have vastly differing opinions on Caesar and different roles from supporter to opponent.

Did Caesar cross the reubicon? And was his crossing due to a supernatural apparition?

Did he cross it ? Almost certainly.

Did it cross it due to a supernatural apparition ? Where did you get that information from ?

Soul Winner · 27-10-2009 04:58AM

monosharp wrote: »

You are authenticating information in a religious text using information in a religious text, the same religious text to be precise. Don't you see our issue with that ?

Yes I do. But what I want to know is why you have an issue with that given that you are quick to point to other texts with equally dubious origins and yet have no issue with that at all.

monosharp wrote: »

Because they are eyewitness accounts of people in the religion who are only important because of their eyewitness accounts written down by someone else equally as unknown who is also in that religion.

Like who? Who in the NT accounts are only important because they are in the NT account?

monosharp wrote: »

Are you changing the terms now ? You asked for a historical account before, now its an eyewitness account ?

Yes, which was my point. Why are your eyewitness accounts historical and yet the NT's aren't? Simple question really.

Soul Winner · 27-10-2009 05:03AM

monosharp wrote: »

Did he cross it ? Almost certainly.

Did it cross it due to a supernatural apparition ? Where did you get that information from ?

Just check Wiki

"Suetonius also described how Caesar was apparently still undecided as he approached the river, and the author gave credit for the actual moment of crossing to a supernatural apparition."

monosharp · 27-10-2009 07:14AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do. But what I want to know is why you have an issue with that given that you are quick to point to other texts with equally dubious origins and yet have no issue with that at all.

I really hope you are not trying to argue that the sources giving us our information on the Roman Republic during the time of Julius Caesar are as equally suspect as the Bible. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume there has been a misunderstanding.

Please see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

Why is the existence of Caesar absolutely certain ?

- We have multiple documents, written by multiple sources during Caesars lifetime and many more afterwards. Those sources are in turn supported by other sources. i.e > We know Cicero was real because there were multiple sources written about him. All these varying sources, from very important individuals all support and agree on some fundamental facts about an individual named Gaius Julius Caesar.
We have accounts of Caesar from external non-Roman sources including the enemies of Rome.

- We have documents written by Caesar himself which also agree with the documents written by others.

- We have Caesars name inscribed all over Roman archeological artifacts.

Like who? Who in the NT accounts are only important because they are in the NT account?

Jesus for one. During his lifetime he did nothing of any importance to anyone besides his own followers. Christianity for its first few hundred years was one minority cult among many with barely a mention in any writings of the time, besides of course the religions own documents.

All the eyewitnesses in the gospels to the resurrection, they were of no historical importance to anyone in any way besides religious and within the religion itself.

What we know about Caesar we know because of his importance in Roman politics, the writings of other important Roman politicians, the writings of his enemies, archaeological evidence both Roman and external etc.

For example we know relatively little about Pontius Pilate but still his existence is more credible than Jesus as his existence is supported by a few different sources. Details of his life however are scant to say the least.

Yes, which was my point. Why are your eyewitness accounts historical and yet the NT's aren't? Simple question really.

The following principles are cited from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997) written by historians:

Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.

We have more relics then we can count for Caesar.

A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

The writings supporting Caesar were written during his lifetime and afterwards.
The writings supporting Jesus were written well after his lifetime.

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

We have multiple accounts of Caesar written by people who knew him. (who in turn had multiple accounts written by people who knew them)
Your eyewitness accounts were not written by the eyewitnesses.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

We have multiple sources for Caesar.
We have one (two, Josephus ?) source for Jesus.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

We have multiple accounts of Caesar by political allies, political enemies, military allies, military enemies. We have accounts of Caesar from within and outside the Roman Empire, all during his lifetime.

The gospels are religiously biased.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

As with Caesar we have multiple sources with no direct interest.

Not so with Jesus. (except possibly Josephus)

We may add the following principles:
Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute subject knowledge:
"Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304).

The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it.
"The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007).

monosharp · 27-10-2009 07:17AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just check Wiki

"Suetonius also described how Caesar was apparently still undecided as he approached the river, and the author gave credit for the actual moment of crossing to a supernatural apparition."

Please see the core points for historical accuracy in my last post.

And no, I don't accept the above.

Rev Hellfire · 27-10-2009 09:00AM

Some of us have to sleep, so that's why the delay in responding

PDN wrote: »

For Christians, of course, this would be tied to our belief that man is made in the image of God. That image is marred through sin (hence we have ungodly emotions as will) but enough remains to explain the similarities.

You'll need to quantify that statement; what exactly do people mean when they say created in 'his image'. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume it's not physically similar, intellectually similar or of similar ability.

Its a bit of a non-committal answer to be honest, so I'll throw it back to you to refine and narrow the scope of the answer.

chozometroid wrote: »

The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

And clearly the answer is no. Not that it couldn't or wouldn't, but rather why would it grant these attributes solely to some remarkable apes ?

I mean if you look at the animal kingdom (and we're limiting ourselves severely here in assuming this lump of rock orbiting a star is the sole location of life in a otherwise vast universe) similar emotions have been attributed to other species, and not all of them have been of the ape family.
We're not that unique as it turns out.

Are they all created in 'his image'? By your definition they are. Which is something I can accept much easier than the idea that we're 'special' if I'm to be honest.

lugha · 27-10-2009 09:25AM

PDN wrote: »

Obvious to who? Obvious to you and those who share your presuppositions, but not obvious to most people.

By obvious I mean as a starting point of the argument, not as a fixed unrevisable viewpoint. If I claim that I can demonstrate perpetual motion or run a car on water then I would say the obvious starting point is that such things are absolutely impossible. If someone can demonstrate them, then our understanding of what is or is not possible is wrong and we revise them (and a lot of our science notions). If I were to take an analogous approach to yours of the resurrection, I might argue, first that one must be agnostic rather than atheistic (or whatever the word would be) to the possibility of perpetual motion. Then I might point to some rotary machine whose power source is not evident and argue, we have agreed that we will consider that perpetual motion may be possible, therefore I conclude that that is probably what is going on here. Even if I ignore the difficulty I have with the overall logic here, I contend that there are far more mundane explanations for the resurrection.

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 10:59AM

chozometroid wrote: »

Maybe you should read the post I quoted from, or better yet, the quote that I actually had in my post.

My bad, read the post incorrectly. Cheerfully retracted

chozometroid wrote: »

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota.

Of course it does. Humans are prone to inventing a certain type of supernatural agent in nature. God looks like this type of supernatural agent. This doesn't prove God is imaginary, but it lends support to such an idea.

Saying it doesn't discredit God is some what silly in my view. It is like saying just because humans are prone to seeing faces in shapes where no face actually exists doesn't discredit the Faces on Mars theory.

chozometroid wrote: »

If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

Ok, now you are doing what I though you were above.

If there is a face on Mars then surely when people look at it they will see a face. Except the only reason people thought there was a face on Mars was because they saw a pattern that looked like a face, something we regularly do when no such face exists.

So that fact discredits the face on Mars idea, just like the fact that humans invent gods like the Christian god discredits the Christian god. Not proves doesn't exist, merely discredits. You require further, non-"I see a face" evidence, because that is inherently unreliable.

Religion has the same issue. We require evidence beyond "I think God exists" evidence, because this is inherently unreliable.

Permabear · 27-10-2009 11:23AM

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 11:29AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do. But what I want to know is why you have an issue with that given that you are quick to point to other texts with equally dubious origins and yet have no issue with that at all.

Who says people have no issue with it?

Do you think historians are happy to accept that Caesar did actually see something supernatural when crossing the Rubicon? Of course not.

Also the historical record differs over what exactly happened when Caesar crossed the river, so I don't know where you think you got the idea that people just accept these accounts as being true.

And certainly no historian would put much weight in Caesar's own personal account of these events, given to the importance he put in his own PR (not unlike a religion)

The issue here I think is that you believe historians put far more weight in historical accounts other than the Bible. They don't. If you see an account accepted as historical it is because there is far more evidence for it than the resurrection of Jesus, a story with a number of problems pointed out very well by dongealfella above

PDN · 27-10-2009 11:36AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it was seen that Jesus had risen from the dead when people saw His resurrected body - hardly the same things as a conjecture based on an empty tomb.

Talking with Jesus over the next 40 days would certainly have helped them understand how Jesus returned from the dead.

It entails believing that the laws of science are controlled by, or under the influence of, a supernatural being. And it entails maintaining that position regardless of all empirical evidence to the contrary.

Really, so you have empirical evidence that the laws of nature are not controlled by, or under the influence of, a supernatural being?

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 11:52AM

PDN wrote: »

No, it was seen that Jesus had risen from the dead when people saw His resurrected body - hardly the same things as a conjecture based on an empty tomb.

You are self referencing there. They knew he was risen from the dead when they say his resurrected body? Ok, well how did they know it was his resurrected body they saw? As opposed to say his twin brother, or a body double?

No one witnessed the dead body come back to life. They witnessed Jesus dead and then later witnessed someone alive that they believed was Jesus. That is not the same thing as witnessing the resurrection.

PDN · 27-10-2009 11:58AM

Wicknight wrote: »

You are self referencing there. They knew he was risen from the dead when they say his resurrected body? Ok, well how did they know it was his resurrected body they saw? As opposed to say his twin brother, or a body double?

No one witnessed the dead body come back to life. They witnessed Jesus dead and then later witnessed someone alive that they believed was Jesus. That is not the same thing as witnessing the resurrection.

Yes, body doubles were a big problem in those days. Particularly ones that remembered everything the original person had said, could fool all his closest associates and his mother, and had whopping big holes in their hands, feet and side that, quite coincidentally, looked remarkably like the wounds everyone had seen inflicted on the dead body.

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 12:32PM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, body doubles were a big problem in those days.

As are people coming back from the dead. :pac:

You may mock but body doubles have been used by cults and tricksters to con and trick. I'm aware of this happening, I'm not aware of anyone being risen from the dead.

Again it goes back to plausibility.

PDN wrote: »

Particularly ones that remembered everything the original person had said, could fool all his closest associates and his mother, and had whopping big holes in their hands, feet and side that, quite coincidentally, looked remarkably like the wounds everyone had seen inflicted on the dead body.

I imagine if people were trying to trick the early Christians they would make an effort.

Also knowing everything someone said and making people think you do are two completely different things.

PDN · 27-10-2009 12:49PM

Wicknight wrote: »

As are people coming back from the dead. :pac:

You may mock but body doubles have been used by cults and tricksters to con and trick. I'm aware of this happening, I'm not aware of anyone being risen from the dead.

Again it goes back to plausibility.

Indeed, and your proposal of the 'body double theory' helps us all to reach our conclusions as to whether we should pay attention to you when you claim what is plausible or not.

Permabear · 27-10-2009 12:55PM

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 12:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, and your proposal of the 'body double theory' helps us all to reach our conclusions as to whether we should pay attention to you when you claim what is plausible or not.

Wicknight wrote:

If someone is claiming that something is historically accurate they should present why, not demand that someone prove otherwise.

So hopefully this thread will avoid that sort of thing, as it becomes a tedious as someone saying Prove to me God doesn't exist!

My prediction of how this thread would go is coming true ... I must have supernatural powers :pac:

Overheal · 27-10-2009 03:14PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good response.

For one, Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. Nor is it claimed in the New Testament that He naturally rose from he dead. Every account of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament states that ‘God’ raised Jesus from the dead. Now I know what you will say to this. That Jesus was God and therefore raised Himself. But the New Testament says that Jesus (The Word made flesh) emptied Himself of His power (Philippians 2:7) thus rendering Himself incapable of raising Himself and therefore trusted that the Father would raise Him according to His promise to Him (Acts 2:24). The Father who He consistently made reference to as being separate from Himself although of the same essence as Himself. "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 for example, yet "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36. The two are holding down separate roles. So if the account in Matthew was unhistorical and only showed what the later Church would have you believe about the deity and divinity of Christ, then why does this verse in Matthew limit Christ in His knowing of future events? This is one of many verses that gives credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding Jesus. If they were later fabrications invented by the early church then they would not have limited Jesus in this way, hence giving credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts. Their account would be dubious at best and at worst ridiculed.

Well therein lies the problem between Christians and Atheists: Atheists will not plug that gap in logical deduction with "God did it". Thats how we end up with the Flat World Theory.

I will throw a bone out though, science still puts toe tags around things they dont understand, like Dark Matter and Gravitons which are both purely Hypothetical particles. About the only difference between those examples and the God Theory (no offense) is that Religion passes it off as The Truth, Science passes it off as The Hypothetical. And God is intended to play a very central role in the individuals life. I cant remember the last time Dark Matter Theory influenced how I carried myself.

Plus you call the eyewitnesses accounts "Dubious". But what I want to know is why they are dubious? What criteria have they failed in order to be regarded as valid eyewitness’s accounts? And can you give me an example of a valid eyewitness account to any accepted ancient historical event? And if so, to explain why that example is a good example but the Gospel accounts are bad examples.

Again because the first hand accounts were rewritten over such a long span of time. Historical Records have been made more accurate in the last few centuries by the Printing Press and far superior record keeping. It would be dubious if a 9/11 victim went and wrote their memoirs of the incident in 2047 trying to recall it like it was yesterday's news.

Mark Hamill · 27-10-2009 04:34PM

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, and your proposal of the 'body double theory' helps us all to reach our conclusions as to whether we should pay attention to you when you claim what is plausible or not.

I never understood why some christians claim that the resurrection of Jesus as written in the bible is the most plausibly true depiction of events. It always seemed to be counter intuitive when you consider that christians are supposed to consider their faith to be their greatest ally. If the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation, then it requires the least faith to believe in. It always seems like knee jerk posting when someone proclaims the resurrection to be perfectly plausible. You should be recognising that things like body doubles and hallucinations are more plausable (given that they are humanly possible) and that the resurrection being incredibly unplausible is what makes it so important.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments