Diogenes the Cynic

Which gospel was written by an eyewitness?
I'll field this one. It means pretty much all modern scholars except for a minority of very religious conservatives.
You tell us. You're the only one who seems to think this.
no one has voiced any such belief.
This is mostly pointless, off topic preaching but just out of curiosity, how can you support your remarkable assertion that you can know your view of God is "accurate" to a "high degree of certainty?"
No, you are not. Neither TomboyMom nor anyone else has asserted any such thing.
The consenus is that they were NOT written by witnesses. The consensus is also that they were not written by anyone who ever MET any witnesses.
Congratulations. Who has suggested you should do so? I also have to say that this statement is rather disingenuous since you seem perfectly willing to blindly accept both the authority of the Bible and demonstrably spurious traditions about biblical authorship.
There is no such thing as Christian and secualr "camps," There is only good scholarship and bad scholarship. The consensus we are talking about includes even the majority of Christian scholars.
"Dogmatic Naturalism?" You mean basic empirical method? Rational standards of proof and evidence? There is nothing "dogmatic" about assuming the impossible is impossible. Scholarship cannot be done any other way. This is one of the most pathetic tactics used by apologists- to try to paint empiricism as an ideology or whine that empirical standards are somehow unfair because they assume that the laws of physics can always be assumed to be inviolable until proven otherwise. Tell me, Patriot7, how SHOULD scientific method operate/ How do we know which magical claims to believe and which not to believe?
This is disingenuous from start to finish.
Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.
That claim is correct. Not a word of the NT was written by an eyewitness of Jesus.
Paul was a witness to nothing but his own hallucinations. Jesus was dead, It was impossible for Paul to have spoken to him. That's never going to count as an eyewitness acount no matter how many times you say it.
The Gospels of Matthew and John were not written by Matthew and John and they are not eyewitness accounts.

Diogenes the Cynic

No one has said any differently. Could you please make an effort to respond to what has actually been said in this thread instead of constantly throwing out strawmen?
No one has said that they did. They probably weren't liars, just bad scholars. They relied on dubious prior assertions, inferential stretches and probably some folk traditions. However they came up with their stories, we can tell by the texts themselves that they weren't written by witnesses.
Fantastic. Show us the extraordinary evidence that Jesus changed water into wine.
Mutiple independent corroboration would be a good start. A single eywitness account would also be helpful.
Your reading comprehension isn't very good, is it? What did Atheos say that was in disagreement with scholarly consensus. He said that there was no evidence-driven reason to believe the authorship traditions of the Gospels. What part of that is in disagreement with scholarly consensus?
Actually, that's exactly what it's based on.
Again, this is thoroughly disingenuous.

buckshot23

How do can you state that something is impossible? Number one you cannot establish that God does not exist and number two you can't establish that He has never acted in history. Therefore you cannot establish that something is impossible.
This was "objectively" established, right?

Diogenes the Cynic

Easy. If it violates the laws of physics, it's impossible by definition.
You can't establish that leprechauns don't exist.
I don't have to. You have to establish that he has. You can't establish that leprechauns haven't acted in history.
Sure I can. If it violates the laws of physics, it's impossible. Saying "it's possible if God exists" is just a tautology. It amounts to saying it's not impossible if if it's done by an entity which can do the impossible. It's a meaningless statement. It doesn't affect the default rational assumption that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. Show me a single reason why the existence of a magical sky-god who can violate the laws of physics desereves the slightest bit of scientific credence. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that the laws of the universe have ever been violated in its entire history, there is no reason to hypothesize a wizard who can accomplish such things.
Yes.

buckshot23

You hear that physicists? You can stop researching, you know it all.
On my box of cereal they do. Anyways of course I can't and I wouldn't state so dogmatically that they could not intervene in history either.
When you state that something is impossible and it is based upon the non-existence of God, yes you do.
Which I am not saying. I am saying that it is possible for God to exist and if it is possible for him to exist then it is possible that miracles can happen.
You just don't know what impossible. That's the point.
So is your opinion about what is impossible.
:huh: How do you know it is impossible in the first place? You do not have enough information to state that anything is impossible.
Well I guess at this point I am going to have to ask you to provide substantiation to your claim that something or anything is impossible.

Sure you can.:huh:
Do you know what "objective" means?

Diogenes the Cynic

Find me a physicist who would say that it's possible to violate the laws of physics.
I'll state it then. Leprechauns cannot possibly exist, and therefore cannot possibly have intervened in history.
I didn;t say anythin was impossible "based on the non-existence of God,: I said it's impossible to violate the laws of physics.
And I'll say again that this is a tautology. All you're saying is that it's not impossible if it's not impossible.
Yes I do. It's anything which cannot physically occur or exist.
Yes I do. Whatever violates the laws of physics, etc... That's the definition of the word. If we can't assume that the laws of physics are inviolable then the word "impossible" has no meaning and no empirical inquiry is impossible.
Laws of physics. It's a default, rational assumption. It is your burden alone to show that the laws of physics have ever been violated.

I don't understand why so many religionists get so upset when I say that miracles are impossible. You wouldn't object if I said it was impossible to run my car on water or to fly by flapping my arms. Why should it be any different to say that people can't walk on water or come back from the dead? The argument that "it's not impossible if a magical sky-fairy did it" is just begging the question. You're hypothesizing one impossible thing to explain another impossible thing.
Of course. It is quite easy to objectively demonstrate that both of those authorship traditions are spurious. It also needs to be said, though, that the burden of proof doesn't actually rest on me but on whoever wants o assert that the traditions reflect reality. The books are anonymous. If you want to assign a particular author to them, pony up the evidence.

buckshot23

I probably could dig one up. However what are these laws of physics you keep referring to. Are these laws apt to change based upon new discovery or are they set in stone for the rest of human history.
Of course you will. I accept that there are things that I cannot know. You know enough to make absolute statements with 100% confidence. Maybe someday I can know enough to do the same thing.
It falls out of the argument. If he does exist(which you cannot disprove) then miracles are a possibility and you cannot say something is impossible credibly.
:huh:

How on earth are you able to state what can and cannot physically occur or exist? You do not know enough.

It would probably be more accurate to say the "known" laws of physics. If you feel that the currently "known" laws are complete then alot of physicists are out of work.
This is about your claim. I am not saying anything actually happened I am asking you how you can determine what is impossible and what is not. "Laws of physics" is not an answer.
I take issue with your religionist label. Also I am not upset in the least. I would like to see what seperates impossible from possible and how you think you have enough knowledge to dogmatically state something is impossible. Also how you can believe that the current understanding in physics is complete enough to be able to dogmatically exclude any event as impossible.
The point is YOU cannot know with 100% certainty what is impossible.
Let me fix that for you.
You know I really don't care that you think the authors are not the ones traditionally assigned to the gospels. What I am taking issue with is your absolute dogmaticism. Like you were there when the original documents were written.

Anduin

You are creating a false dichotomy here. The church was not purposefully building the gospels and fabricating authorship. In many instances, some of the early church fathers probably believed that the authors were who they said they were (including the gospels of Thomas, Peter and Mary). The four gospels were eventually chosen because they fit better with the accepted theology at the time. Authorship was irrelevant.

Diogenes the Cynic

Laws of Physics.
No.
Yes. From Wikepedia:
Do you think it's possible that there are leprechauns? Do you think that leprechauns are any less plausible than sky-gods? If so, why?
This is still a tautology, no matter how many times you say it. You're hypothesizing another impossible thing to explain how the impossible can be accomplished.
All I have to know is the laws of physics and the laws of physics cannot be violated or contradicted. If they could be, they wouldn't be laws.
Why would they be out of work. Laws are unchangeable. Physicists already work with that assumption.
Yes it is. Look at the last itme on my quoted list above.
There is no dogma involved. Physical laws are determined by direct observation.
There is no dogma involved and physical laws are not changeable, by definition.
I can know with 100% certainty whether something will violate physical laws and that's all I need to know. If it violateds physical laws it's physically impossible by definition.
Your correction is wrong. Opinions don't play into it.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. I have made no dogmatic statements at all.
Strawman.

Amaleq13

The "impossible" is necessary to the notion of miracles.

miracle: 1) An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God