TomboyMom

This is logic? A bunch of other people were wrong, so you're wrong too? Shall we start listing the things the Christian Church has been wrong about over the centuries, starting with that the sun revolves around the earth and going from there?

Jack the Bodiless

Furthermore, most of those "False Premises" could actually be true.

Sven

The irony is strong in this one...

Wow. I'm impressed. The guy has a PhD.

:huh: What? Could please someone explain if Copan or Lea wrote the above?

buckshot23

We can never know with any level of certainty. It is absolutely meaningless what a consensus of scholars think when trying to determine what happened. Furthermore of that consensus there are probably thousands of disagreements on other details which should indicate the level of uncertainty inherent in this type of field. Language like "The gospels were NOT written by x, y, z.", is not justified by the fragmentory level of the evidence(imho). There should not be that level of certainty. Stating that there is is just not being honest with the evidence.

Amaleq13

It is "absolutely meaningless" when scholars of differing backgrounds and potential biases agree with regard to what the evidence indicates?

Sounds like irrational hyperbole to me.

The Bishop

No, no, I happen to think buckshot is right! It really is meaningless to talk about a consensus of scholarship when a piece of evidence may turn up tomorrow which turns "the consensus" totally on its head. Same goes for scientific consensus. But as long as the consensus view leads you on to make discoveries and learn something, then it is useful. The consensus does make claims based on what is possible. The devout make claims based on what is not possible or even likely. You learn nothing from that.

But the point is that once again what is highlighted is that the OP title is just as meaningless. Let's look at it slightly differently.

Richbee's absolutely right. Not one of these 10 facts can be disproved. Not one of them is crucial to actual Christian belief, or even belief in God.

Unfortunately, if we are talking about "proof" and "disproof", the ten statements are internally inconsistent, which is what rules them out of court.

Specifically:

1. Jesus died.
4. Soon after, the Apostles began testifying that Jesus had risen from the dead.
5. The Apostles really believed they had seen Jesus alive again.

If 4 and 5 are true, it could be that Jesus "died" and was resuscitated - but he didn't die in the clinical sense, in the same way that all sorts of people have died and come back to life. On the other hand, if 1 is definitely true, then 4 could be true, but 5 would be false, because they could testify till they were blue in the face, it wouldn't alter the fact that they were lying about it.

FatherMithras

Sorry, but this is crap. There's absolutely no evidence that the gospels were written by who they're named after, and a mountain of it that says it could not possible have been written by them. Once again, faith does not trump fact and you cannot pick and choose at history to try and make it fit your paradigm.

Angrillori

Yeah, you're right. The conclusions of folks who have access to, have studied, and have spent a significant portion of their life analyzing the evidence is absolutely meaningless, so we should just all make up whatever we want, because hey, anyone COULD be wrong!

Seriously. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The fact that there's a chance someone may be wrong, or that there may be some evidence we don't know about is no reason to believe they are wrong, or that the evidence is there.

That's the stuff of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

It takes more to overturn the consensus of experts' credibility than to assert that they may be wrong. It takes evidence that they are wrong.

To suggest that scholars are "absolutely meaningless" because they may be wrong, is completely irrational, and completely disregards what the scholars are and what they do.

I agree that it's a common creationist and in this case apologist tactic to claim that all uncertainty is equal, that if we don't know something for sure, then that's enough to not believe it at all, but in a world of uncertainty, this tactic is misleading at best, downright dishonest at worst.

100% certainty is not equal to 50% certainty is not equal to 5% certainty, and obviously if there's a consensus of scholars on a subject they add to our level of certainty. Maybe it doesn't get us to 100% certain, since, as bucky likes to remind us, "there's a chance they could all be wrong!" But that sure as hell doesn't equal 0% certainty!

And, as linked to before, it is patently irrational to disagree with the consensus of experts, without good reason. Of course we're all waiting to hear the good reason. And by the way, "they might be wrong" and "there might be a conspiracy" are not good reasons.

A good reason to disagree with the experts on geocentrism were the observed paths the planets took through the sky not being reconcilable with geocentrism. A good reason to disagree with classical physics was the equivalence principle which was incompatible with Newton's laws. A good reason to disagree with flat-earthism was the observation that ships' masts appeared on the horizon before the rest of the ship. A good reason to disagree with phlogiston was the observation that things gained, and did not lose mass when burned.

Finally, let us consider that if we accept this: experts are meaningless because they could be wrong, where does it stop? Do I stop going to the doctor because he "could be wrong?" Should NASA consult me, instead of a rocket-scientist to make orbital calculations because the rocket scientist "could be wrong?"

Should we stop teaching history entirely, since the textbooks are all written by scholars, whose work apparently is "entirely meaningless?"

Doug Shaver

I don't know if I'm getting your point.

Are you suggesting that until we have evidence enough to justify certainty, no opinions are justified?

buckshot23

Here comes the "mountain of evidence" again. :banghead:Anyways...I am not arguing anything but the fact that your consensus statement is worthless. I am sorry but this is crap.