Zombrex wrote: » All your speculation is made up. You take perfectly normal science and then slap "conclusion" on the end of it and insert any old made up nonsense. Stick to the facts, not your "conclusion" from the facts, and we will be fine.
Jernal wrote: » Added to my to read list, thanks. It may be rubbish, or I may never get to it read but it does sound interesting.
nagirrac wrote: » Who is "we"? Last time I checked boards was an online community where members can express their opinions and not a peer reviewed science journal.
nagirrac wrote: » The definition of speculation in the context I am using the word is: An opinion, conclusion, or theory based on incomplete evidence or conjecture (a guess).
nagirrac wrote: » What is your view of the multiverse theory? Is it "made up"?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Listen/view/read just about any of the the links I gave above. In particular the resources featuring Richard Bauchkam as these are about his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. (The clue is in the title.) John Dickson, as I've said already, also mentions the extra-Biblical references to Jesus.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Again, how do you know what the reaction of countless historians would be to a news event that has never happened? Where is your evidence that they would not bat an eyelid?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I think the word you are looking for is inerrancy. I also think that you need to read up on the doctrine. From what you wrote it looks as if you have not understood it nor the range of views held about it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » This is irrelevant to our discussion. People believe things for all manner of reasons. So good, some not so good.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I certainly have considered the possibility> I have, at times, had my trust in the evidence shaken. And yet I still don't think that they lied nor do I think that they made a mistake when they thought that they saw their crucified and dead friend walking about the place.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » For those interested I would add another resource to the the list I gave in a previous post. This would be Cold Case Christianity by Jim Wallace, a cold case detective. (I thought they only had them in ghastly shows like CSI). As an atheist he decided to investigate the Jesus story as if it were a cold case. It's quite a unique angle to take on the debate.
Zombrex wrote: » ...as you keep doing this with every subject area we are discussing, be it evolution, quantum physics or the brain.
robp wrote: » The topic can't even be touched if it is continually broken into one liners and certainly not misleading one liners like that. Evidence/ proof refers something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement or statement or argument used in such a validation whether definitive or not. To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.
Zombrex wrote: » Generally telling someone to go off and read something some where else in order to find the answer to a question is considered bad form on Boards.
Zombrex wrote: » Can you point out where any of the people you mention make a claim that we have first hand eye witness accounts of Jesus, or non-Biblical record of his existence.
Zombrex wrote: » I've already explained it.
Zombrex wrote: » If I asked you would many Christians be upset if it turned out that Jesus was a fraud, you could answer that without relatively easily (yes being the answer), without having to quiz each and every Christian or wait for that event to happen because of what you know about them by virtue of them being Christian.
Zombrex wrote: » Maybe point out the passages of the Bible that contain errors, that would certainly demonstrate that it is not considered inerrant by at least one Christian.
Zombrex wrote: » You claimed they just happened to be Christians. But of course being Christian has a significant influence on how one approaches the historical study of these claims.
Zombrex wrote: » Do you think anyone in the Bible ever lied, made a mistake, or recorded anything down incorrectly while writing the books of the Bible? Do you think any of the authors of the gospels, or Paul, lied, made a mistake or recorded anything incorrectly in the New Testament?
Zombrex wrote: » Isn't he now a Christian pastor?
Worztron wrote: » Misleading? You don't see the irony. It is impossible to disprove the existence of something made up (i.e. something believed in despite not a single shred of hard evidence). I think this quote says it well. John McCarthy: "An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the god question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. 2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation. 3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
robp wrote: » Irony? I am not sure what part of the definition of proof you don't grasp. Werewolf? Seriously? The average person reading that is going to deduce for themselves contempt or just plan insecurity.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » It's not my intention to be rude. However, I'm not interested in offering a synopsis of the arguments presented by people like Wright, Baukham and others. The reasons are: a) I don't believe you would be convinced and therefore it is a waste of my time; b) I'm not confident that I can do justice to their arguments. I don't claim any special knowledge in the area of textual criticism or Biblical history. The can literally speak for themselves.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You have offered your opinion, I have offered mine.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » If you think this is rude then so be it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » But I've done so already. You can read the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. If you don't want to pay the money or devote the time (it's about 500 pages long so I understand) then you can listen to the two part discussion linked to previously.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » But of course a Christian isn't analogous to a historian so your point fails. Christians by definition hold a position on the existence of Jesus. Historians don't.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » And that is why I don't accept that you can possibly know how a diverse group of people with all manner of world-views would react to an event that hasn't yet happened and I suggest never will.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You seem not to have taken on board what I said about inerrancy.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » What I actually said was that your point was irrelevant to our discussion.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » It's a possibly.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I think that up until very recently (a matter of weeks) he was still an officer working on his last case (possibly NSFW).
Zombrex wrote: » Well no, you said I was wrong and then told me to go off and read a whole lot of books to understand why I was wrong.
Zombrex wrote: » I don't think it is rude, I think it is bad form. If I stated someone like We know Jesus didn't exist because of artifacts found from the time, and you reasonably asked what artifacts I imagine you would find it bad form as well if I just linked you to a load of books.
Zombrex wrote: » I did. The claim from Bauckham, if I'm understanding correctly, is that the authors of the gospels talked to people who claim to have witnessed Jesus.
Zombrex wrote: » An historian will be constrained in his interpretations of historical documents by his religious faith, for example faith in the inerrancy of the Bible
Zombrex wrote: » That isn't what I asked you. I asked you do you think any of them did, and which ones.
Zombrex wrote: » But he is a Christian preacher now. He is no longer an atheist, this isn't a non-Christian view of the Bible.
Zombrex wrote: » dismissing the significance.
FISMA wrote: » Zombrex, One of the difficulties here between God and Science, is that we are mixing the absolute with the relative. There are so many things that Science cannot answer. I am not talking about the difficult stuff, but the things we take for granted. Things so engrained in our every day lives that we do not or cannot question them and expect an answer.
FISMA wrote: » For example, what IS time? Don't tell me how to measure it or something correlated to it, tell me what time IS. Also, don't ask what "IS" is!:p
FISMA wrote: » This again brings me to another fundamental issue with our brain of which you wereThere is no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory works properly.
FISMA wrote: » For all we know, God constantly reveals himself to us, but due to the limitations of our brain, that information, although, actualized at some instant in time, may not be stored for any time.
FISMA wrote: » You may dismiss this as philosophical, however, I see the dilemma as being logical and reasonable and an Achilles heel for science.
FISMA wrote: » If science cannot offer us a means by which we may test our memory, why should expect science to afford us a test for the God of the Universe?
FISMA wrote: » That just doesn't make sense to me.
Zombrex wrote: » Well proof outside of maths or science, generally means something that is impossibe or very difficult to dispute in any reasonable fashion. If you say the sky is blue and show someone the sky that would be considered proof that it is blue. Of course either a crazy person or a philosopher might have something to say about that, but generally if an argument is considered air tight by most reaonsble means it is considered proven. There is absolutely no proof that anything of the Bible is true. People can claim it makes sense to them that it is true, but that is an entirely different matter. A way to demonstrate this is to simply take arguments for why any particular part of the Bible is true (for example why would the witnesses of the resurrection lie) and apply that to another religion that cannot be true at the same time. I've yet to come across an argument for the truth of Christianity that doesn't automatically prove the truth of a heck of a lot of other religions if you simply apply that argument to those other religions. Thus this argument cannot be proof of the truth of Christianity if it also proves the truth of religions that cannot be true if Christianity is true. And more importantly, there must be something else going on if a Christian applies said argument to Christianity as a justification for why they find Christianity rationally convincing, but is unmoved in belief when the same argument is applied to other religions.
robp wrote: » I do hope what you mean to say is there is no proof that the supernatural events in the bible are true.
robp wrote: » Even this isn't strictly true. For historians the principal record is documentary sources. So the bible is evidence in itself but of course in no way is one source all going to enough on many events.
robp wrote: » Regarding other religions why see it as binary?
robp wrote: » Why do you think that religious people believe that if one is true the other must be false.
robp wrote: » Heck even Benedict has writings where he stresses there must be significant amount of truth in some of the other major religions, and he is seen as conservative.
robp wrote: » ...To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.
Worztron wrote: » Proof - the key words are "factual evidence" -- the very thing you and your ilk completely lack. I'm sure the average person would have embraced logic and reason. You have accepted miracles therefore every scientific explanation is out of the question. You are fully armored against logic with ignorance. You mock my werewolf quote after your dribble: AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."
Zombrex wrote: » There is no proof I'm aware of that the supernatural events in the Bible are true. If you have some I'd be interested in hearing it. But it is not proof. All the supernatural stories in the Bible could be made up or imagined. Since the only thing we have to go on in support of these claims is the testimony of humans, who are entirely fallible, this cannot be considered proof by any use of that term, since was I mentioned proof requires that at least on some level there is no reasonable alternative. And the idea that humans imagine things, make up things and lie about things is very reasonable considering all the evidence we have of this (and all the other religions that by definition cannot be true if Christianity is true) The existence of all the other human religions, which rely on nothing more than the Christian religion relies on (humans claiming something supernatural happened) are in fact the primary reason why Christianity cannot be considered proven, since you would have to apply the same standard to all the other religions. If a human claiming something supernatural happened proved that it did happen then that would prove all religions. And since they are mutually exclusive you run into serious philosophical problems. Or to put it another way, the fact that we know humans must have made up other religions makes Christianity inherently untrustworthy given that belief in it is based on the same shaky foundation. What, other than the first Commandment :P Christianity already makes it binary. That is a good question. Probably because religion is a process of control and authority, and this is weakened if believers are given the option of moving away to another belief system while still being considered acceptable by the original religion. Most religions, particularly the monotheistic religions, have very strong rules against the worshiping of other gods. As I said, it is the first commandment of the Judo-Christian religions. Well you will have to define "significant amount of truth". I don't think Benedict would have got very far if he professed the existence of other gods. But heck, we don't know why he resigned really :P
robp wrote: » Not worth dignifying with a serious rebuttal.
robp wrote: » If not up to you to redefine the meaning of the word 'proof'. 'Proof /evidence' is not equal to 'proof beyond doubt'.
robp wrote: » There is a hell of a difference. I am not even arguing for truth of these supernatural events just a more honest framing of the debate.
robp wrote: » Most religions are no more a process of 'control' than membership of the local GAA team or having a nationality.
robp wrote: » It s not a case that belief in multiple gods is required for Christian to find significant truth in other religions.
robp wrote: » In fact the existence of different gods in monotheistic systems is a logical fallacy. there may be different names but the same fundamental concept means it is the same God.
vronki wrote: » Religion can know anything through divine revelation.
vronki wrote: » Nothing is impossible for God.
vronki wrote: » Unless you can describe to me how science can disprove existence itself...
vronki wrote: » Such an easy concept to grasp but atheists don't want to accept it.
vronki wrote: » Maintaining there is no God < > Maintaining there is = both articles of faith.
Worztron wrote: » Oh dear! Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" That makes no sense. I find that to be a foolish and arrogant statement. You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith? :eek: Now I've heard it all.
vronki wrote: » No actually, I never said that. That's what you said.
Pushtrak wrote: » Correction: It is what is implied by what you said. You can not say what you did without the implication. And it's a fairly explicit implication.
vronki wrote: » Got it wrong again. "You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith? Now I've heard it all." Believers have evidence, based on personal knowledge of God through their lives. It's not counted as evidence though because of the obvious inability to prove it to others. Believers have very good reasons to believe, they'd be lying to themselves if they didn't. My point is one side is actually seeking an experience, and so report back with something. Therein lies the difference. Quit positing your atheism as a more rational position. To never seek God in your heart is irrational and clearly out of avoidance, not wanting to know God. Because unbelievers know exactly that's where they'll find him. And that will always be a thorn in the side of atheists, they never cared about reality or truth to sincerely seek God. Just sat back with science books claiming it's impossible. It's an easier position to hold after all, no judgement, no moral law. Pantheism even, will and has always been very popular with humanity.
marienbad wrote: » Without meaning to insult you but this is just rubbish. For instance how do you explain atheists who have fallen away from belief , which is, I would guess is most atheists in the western world ?
nagirrac wrote: » There is a very simple explanation for this marienbad, they were likely never believers to begin with. I base this not on some image I have of what an atheist is but on my own experience and the testimony of most atheists I know, in particular Irish atheists who were formerly Catholics. The comprehension gap here is the difference between participating in a religion and actually believing, they are not necessarily related. For example, I was raised a Catholic and stopped participating at the age of ~14. However, I would say there was no difference in any consideration of God because of that event, I just gave up participating in what I saw at the time as a shallow and frankly hypocritical organization. I never considered God until much later in life and would have described myself as an atheist for many years, actually now that I reflect on it, for a few decades. You have to consider God to believe in God. I can only speak for myself but in my experience belief in God is absolutely rational from both a subjective and objective perspective. The mistake many atheists make imo is in having rejected a specific idea of God they cannot allow themselves conceive of another. This results in a retreat into scientism and the belief that if science cannot prove God then God cannot exist. If you reflect on what all the major mystical traditions tell us, starting with Hinduism the oldest of the major religions, you see the same theme that "God is not part of nature, God is the reason for nature".
marienbad wrote: » And without meaning to insult you nagirrac this is just more rubbish and the complete giveaway is your use of the word ''likely'' . How is it believers such as your self have such a clear window into other men's souls ? Actually re-reading your post the mind boggles your ( unintended I am sure) arrogance.
