So you agree that the resurrection of Jesus would not have left any geological evidence? That is the point of this thread isn't it? What kind of evidence we would expect such an amazing miracle to have left?

You attack my weakest point, which I never claimed was a strong one- only a by-product of the resurrection truth. These other "ripples" due suggest a likelihood that the above individuals had something to say and changed the world in some way. And they did. If the original events mentioned were true, mosques, Buddhist temples, etc. would be resulting from (the prophethood of Mohammed, the "enlightened" state of Gautama) them. I would suggest that there is some reasonableness in thinking that a "world" religion might be true, considering how it has at least survived centuries as an ideology without losing it's base. It is quite probable that Christianity would not exist today if Jesus had not risen from the dead; the disciples would not have had the motivation to spread their faith. Consider how "Koreshism" and the Heaven's Gate cult have ceased. There have been numerous others who were thought to be the Messiah throughout history; they have been only a glimmer in the eye of religious history compared to Christianity. Those failed Messiahs for the most part have passed by the wayside; if Jesus' actions had truly ceased on the cross, there would be no churches today. The office of Messiah is a far greater one than the office of a prophet or teacher; therefore the demands put upon Messiah are greater.

Tell me, are you an idiot, or have you just missed my point? My point was this: If you are trying to find the correct answer to a question, the one thing you do NOT do is assume the answer. If I'm not sure whether you're telling the truth and I'm trying to discover whether there are aliens with a flying saucer it would be stupid of me to rule out the possibility before I start.

This is a historical event, how do you propose to perform a falsifiable test???

Hahaha, funny.

No, just a lot of general complaints. It's inaccuracy for starters. I am skeptical of its accuracy beyond 2000 years or so and have completely no confidence in it beyond 4000 years. I'm not really prepared to argue this point, believe in it if you like...

Do you mean that it has been used over 100,000 times giving a date? Or do you mean it gave a provably accurate date those 100,000 times. If so, please give an example as to how its accuracy might be 'proved' and approximately how far back in time its accuracy has been proven to. (I know the answers to these, I'm just wondering if you do)

I think you missed the sarcasm here. What are you actually trying to say by "we have tremendous proof for... the age of the earth"? We obviously know that it has an age. I have tremendous proof that the earth is older than I am. Knowing the age of the earth is all about accuracy. We don't truly know the age of the earth we just approximate. (And give our approximation a far smaller margin of error than it really has) So do you mean that we have a reasonable approximation of the age of the earth?

Old enough, how is my age relevent here? That's the sort of question which gets asked when the other person thinks I'm completely wrong. Don't worry, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to science, especially physics.
I know what you mean by your point, I was just nit-picking: Without achieving an absolute vacuum we cannot be absolutely sure about what happens in one. The assumption that the speed of light in an absolute vacuum is almost the same/the same as the speed of light in a near vacuum is almost certainly warrented. Remember however that it is an assumption, it may not necessarily be true.

Really? I've never been accused of that before... It's always been me accusing others... well turn and turn about I suppose.

To use the scientific method you must have a physical object you can study repeatedly. History can't be studied repeatedly as it happens once, therefore it isn't a science. Archeology is a science because we find relics which can be studied repeatedly. Geology (for anyone's information) is an interesting mixture of both science and history, almost like archeology and history under one name. The scientific method applies to the scientifically testable part of Geology but not to the historical part. Geology is regarded as a science because it has a scientific part.

I have. I've also seen other replies to you in this thread. You don't seem to understand the relationship between science and history. History is NOT a science. Demanding science type/level evidence for history is idiotic. They are different things.

Hogswallow. Multiple attestation was handled by the huge Taoist canon of 1,500 texts (for the past) and video/eyewitnesses for Sai Baba (present). Embarassment is obvious in the recording of failure and counterclaims in the Taoist and Sai Baba record. dissimilarity and coherence are subjective, in the latter case, you admitted that was so. If you don't think so, read the record.

Meier's criteria are garbage. You should quietly retire them and get some better ones.

Michael

Tell me, are you an idiot, or have you just missed my point? My point was this: If you are trying to find the correct answer to a question, the one thing you do NOT do is assume the answer. If I'm not sure whether you're telling the truth and I'm trying to discover whether there are aliens with a flying saucer it would be stupid of me to rule out the possibility before I start.

I think a person who believes another human walked on water and rose from the dead is really in no position to be calling others "idiots." Just drop the "idiot" label.

It is an axiom of scholarly and scientific investigation (outside of religions studies) that miracles do not occur. I suppose that makes all scholars "idiots."

• They violate the assumption, proven by the fact of evolution and other long-term processes we know of, that the laws of nature hold for the past as well as the present.

• Since they have no specifiable properties, they cannot be rigorously investigated (once you assume their possiblity). No methodology can discover whether they are true. In fact, no current methodolgy can determine whether a miracle is a product of god(s) and thus a genuine suspension of natural law, or the work of highly advanced aliens.

• They render scholarship nonsensical. Once you assume the possibility of miracles, when do you stop? Was the victory of the Allies a naturalistic event explainable by mundane, if complex causes, or was it a miracle of good over evil? Several times in Africa I came under fire by snipers. I was never hit. Was that a miracle? Mamenchisaurus had a neck fifteen meters long, and no one can yet figure out how it breathed. Was its life sustained by the direct intervention of god? You see the problem. Once you allow for miracles, you cannot prove that anything was NOT a miracle. You may as well give up the whole program of explanation and investigation, since anything could be a miracle, even something apparently mundane.

Further, all of Jesus' miracles are mundane and common to many miracle workers in history. Many people, even today (see Sai Baba) are claimed to have raised the dead, or come back from the dead. Healing the sick is a very ordinary miracle; just flip on your TV and watch preachers doing it. Jesus left us no interesting miracles. Imagine if he had left us a floating pyramid of plastic, moved Jerusalem to a place just outside of Chicago Illinois, or actually brought world peace. Since miracles similar to those of Jesus investigated today have turned out to be invention, fraud, error or misunderstanding, we can confidently assume that past miracles fall into that category as well.

Your analogy is wrong. If you investigate "miracles," you are justified in eliminating them from the start. But if you investigate flying saucers, you are not justified in eliminating the actual possibility of alien visits. Aliens could be visiting us; their presence here would not violate known natural laws. All extraordinary claims are not extraordinary in the same way, Tercel.

Michael

It is quite "possible" that this is true, but the majority of the worlds other religions make it less than "probable".

The fact is, those who choose to follow a certain individual, DO have the motivation to spread their faith as can be seen by (insert your religion here). Most religions have had a "someone" whether they call him prophet, enlightened, etc.

Besides, it would be hard for any cult to take hold in the world today with the overwhelming saturation of media and instant world communication.

[a_theistnotatheist:]
I would suggest that there is some reasonableness in thinking that a "world" religion might be true, considering how it has at least survived centuries as an ideology without losing it's base. It is quite probable that Christianity would not exist today if Jesus had not risen from the dead; the disciples would not have had the motivation to spread their faith. Consider how "Koreshism" and the Heaven's Gate cult have ceased. There have been numerous others who were thought to be the Messiah throughout history; they have been only a glimmer in the eye of religious history compared to Christianity. Those failed Messiahs for the most part have passed by the wayside; if Jesus' actions had truly ceased on the cross, there would be no churches today. The office of Messiah is a far greater one than the office of a prophet or teacher; therefore the demands put upon Messiah are greater.

[LP:]
That is totally specious. Does the continued existence of Islam mean that Mohammed must still be at work after his death?

So when is a_theistnotatheist going on a pilgrimage to Mecca?

Toto

If there had been a bodily resurrection of Jesus after he died, there would have been a massive amount of energy transferred, what would be required to put molecules that had started to decay back together. This should have made an impact somewhere, like a bomb going off.

I would also have expected to see an enemy of Jesus note his physical return. Friends and supporters seeing him can be explained away as delusional or wishful thinking or outright fraud. But Jesus did not even show himself physically to Paul. Since Paul was instrumental in the success of the early church, I think that this negates the idea that a miraculous resurrection is required to explain the success of Christianity.

The question on the table has been asked of you 3 times now (lpetrich's question):


And he further clarified it, when you pretended to miss the point earlier:




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 21, 2001).]

No, it wouldn't. Turtonm already addressed this quite adequately.

No, it is an alleged historical event. The first step is to prove that any such event is even possible in the first place.

Are the historical claims consistent with known science?


Hahaha all you want, but I'm correct. As evidence by your lack of answer.

Evidently you don't understand c14 and are not prepared to debate it. Smart move.



http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/ar...arbon%20dating

Also check this page out:
http://search.britannica.com/frm_red...on/carbon.html


To be clear: we have established a minimum age for the earth. Geologists will usually state this as "the earth is known to be AT LEAST 4.55 billion years old", or some similiar language.


Unless you have good reason to suspect that there is a problem here, then correct: you are nitpicking, without any proper reason.

I repeat:

The non-repeatability of a historical event does not stop us from scientifically investigating it (if it ever happened at all). We can still study that event by testing the claims of the event, as well as any artifiacts associated with it.


However, archaelogical events (such as the fall of Babylon) are one-time events. Are you saying that we cannot apply scientific method to the claims surrounding that event?


No, not really. Geology is a hard science. And since archaeology is specifically the study of ancient human civilizations and remains, there is no connection to geology (study of the non-living, non-human earth).


It does apply to the historical part.

Geology studies the events, even the unique events, in the earth's long history by applying the scientific method to the available evidence. The fact that geology uses the S.M. on such things as the NgoroNgoro crater, the Xicxulub compaction zone, or the eruption of Mt. Aetna, demonstrates that the scientific method is useful even on one time events.


Your distinction is bogus.


I fully understand the difference. However, no historical conclusions are valid, if those conclusions contradict science. In other words, scientific facts supersede historical conclusions, whether you like it or not.