Theli

Pretty dumb, if you ask me. I mean... Why should god be orderly without requiring a creator of his own, but the universe can't be?

As scientists they don't usually wan't to resort to "magic" to explain things. You apperantly do.

But wouldn't you count natural laws as being responsible for the order in the universe? And isn't natural laws naturalism?

I say you can't prove anything by calling it supernatural. If you are using "supernatural" to explain the supposed sightings of Jesus after his death, I must remind you of 2 other explanations. More plausable and doesn't require magic.
If some people makes the unlikely observation that a dead person is alive and speaking to them, doesn't it require ALOT of evidence to be even considered the truth?
Isn't the 2 more likely explanations that they
1. Thought they saw the dead person alive.
or 2. They lied.

If I said that I was on Jupiter the other day picking strawberries with Stalin, would you believe me?
Wouldn't you count THAT as supernaturalism?
And you can't use naturalism to prove it wrong, since it's "supernatural", right?
So in conclution, I WAS on Jupiter the other day, and Jesus DID rise from the dead.


or did we?
Is there something wrong with this sort of logic?

IS it logic?

HelenM

...and if I said that someone else was, a few decades ago, would you believe me?

That introduces more opportunities for something to have happened other than what I said.

However, I do believe it's possible for information to be accurately perceived and handed down.

I'm not ruling it out

love
Helen

Automaton

I don't see how a book of scarce anecdotal evidence passed on via incredibly poorly preserved manuscripts and word-of-mouth through absolutely countless generations, and manipulated by a cruel power structure that used it solely to suit its own needs, could constitute (in itself) reliable testimony of the claims within it.

Jack the Bodiless

...How?

We observe that the Universe appears to be orderly. Christians also believe that the Universe was created by God. However, I see no indication in the Bible that "Christian theism implies consistency and discernable orderliness in the universe".

Polytheistic religions generally have specific deities that regulate natural phenomena like the seasons or the day/night cycle. But the J/C God mostly intervenes by going on the rampage and upsetting the natural order (i.e. acting like a god of storms and destruction, which is what he appears to have been originally). I don't recall any verse where God intervened to prevent a cataclysmic or supernatural event: "Satan tried to create a rain of cow-sized blue frogs over Jerusalem: but the LORD prevented it, as Guardian of Naturalism".

Ted Hoffman

First, to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding:
AF: Finally, did Christ claim to be God. Certainly, the NT reports that he did (John 8:58).

He is not saying that the NT proves that Jesus was God: He is saying that the NT says that Jesus claimed to be God. Which, btw, is true.
He(Jesus) however, also said He is NOT God.
"Eloi, eloi lema sabathnacha" "please God, if it be possible, please take this cup away from me" etc.

AttFinch, let me get this straight, you are saying that:
1. The Bible is a substantial and credible evidence for Gods existence.
2. The Bible Says Jesus Lived.
3. The bible says Jesus said he is God.
4. Therefore God exists.

Your argument collapses to ash because premise (1) fails.
This is how it fails:
The bible cannot be accepted as credible evidence because it is not consistent (with reality), is self-contradictory, full of embellishments, plagiarism and other holes that cannot make it acceptable as credible evidence.

Now of course the next part will be to illustrate the existence of these features that make the bible unacceptable as a credible account on what took place in the past, which will compel us to launch into biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Which rightly belongs to the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology section. You will have to tell us how you want it, but a simple google search can give you sites dealing with those issues <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ky/agnosticism/xbible.html" target="_blank">start here</a>. Then get back on this matter.

There are questions that arise when the assumption
is made that the bible is true: Why should we believe the accounts of the writers of the bible and not the accounts of the people who claim that Sai Baba performed miracles? Where did the body of Jesus go after he resurrected? Why should we believe in the bible and not Koran(which says that Jesus was just a prophet - NOT a son of God, leave alone God)? When the bible contradicts science (as it does with the scientific errors in it - check <a href="http://www.thehedgemaze.com/ask_satan/satan_speaks/ipcd7.htm" target="_blank">here</a>) can it still be considered a source of divinely inspired truth?
If so, what is the place of science in our lives? If Jesus (God Himself as you have claimed) was so ignorant on the nature of mental illness that he believed that insane people were posessed by demons, can such a person be considered "God"?

If you cannot answer these questions, then your argument cannot be considered valid or even sound.

[Edited to exorcise demon-posessed words ]

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

CX

I was in a band called "Logical Mustard". (Did you mean "muster"?

Atticus_Finch

I agree that resistance to falsification is an excellent criteria for analyzing a proposition. I suggest, however, that there is little or no credible evidence that suggests that the NT is false. Therefore, we are generally left with considering whether the NT should be considered a credible witness on its own merits.

I am interested to know what if any information you believe contradicts the NT. Please do not rely on a priori conclusions discounting miracles or supernatural events. That will get us no where.

Regards,

Finch

MOJO-JOJO

I think Earl Doherty's site is as good a place as any to start with views that contradict the NT.

<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/puzzle1.htm" target="_blank">Jesus Puzzle</a>

I don't care how you may feel about Doherty, so please keep your attacks to his arguments and their support, not him. At least his theory HAS valid support based on extra-biblical history....more than we can say for the NT.

John Page

Automaton is right, the bible was written by men and therefore unreliable IMO.

If you take the contrary position and accept the bible as literally true you are implicitly stating that men are infallible, which is demonstrably untrue and (paradoxically) confirmed by the bible!

Perhaps it would have been better if women had written the bible. Helen?

Hans

Why not assume there is no information that contradicts the NT? And lets ignore the OT, like you have, and pretend the OT is not part of the same bible. Even if we did all that, why believe the claims made there-in? What would we have to suggest they are accurate?