crocodile deathroll

What is it that really made you and me? It is very easy to fall into the old theological trap and say "Well God did it". One may assume that even the material substance was made by the hands of God. But we now know that now can be created in the core of massive stars including the iron in our blood the calcium and phosphorous in our bones, so this explains away a property that we at one time not only attributed to God but also used it as evidence for the existence of God. So in the scientific ignorance of ancient times what we understood about the natural world we imagined the hand of God in far more things than we know today, and there are still some things like few unexplained medical recoveries may attribute some hand of God in the form of miracle, but as we understand more about the immune system and nano-medicine, that too I am sure we be explained away. So then someone we have conjure up a few more gaps in our epistemology for God to fill. A belief in miracles is a very strong reason why people believe in a Christian God - Jesus walking on water - restoring sight to the blind - loaves and fishes and more. I feel when miracles are explained away like the God Thor's lightning bolts, then many people will lose the reason to believe in a Christian God

CD

Ted Hoffman

And Where was Jesus before God rauised him from the dead?
Was he dead? There was a time when Jesus, technically, did not exist?
If that is so, we can't say he has always been - can we? If he has always been alive (in the concept of the living God) then why didn't he raise himself from the dead?
If he really died (even for a moment) then he is immortal.
What do you think?

Skeptical

I think the confusion is whether you are speaking metaphorically or not. If you are not speaking metaphorically, if you are saying that modern Christians have literally raised physically dead people from their grave, please provide your evidence. Please, I would really love to hear about this.

madmax2976

<strong> Oh great. Now I have to accept your opinion and definition of what naturalism is. Tell you what Tercel, your God is just a child God that created the universe as a science experiment and forgot to turn us off. When it comes back from vacation, its parents will make it flip the switch. If you don?t like me defining your theism for you, well I guess that's just too bad.

<strong> That's fine with me. You use the success of methodological naturalism, which forms one of the premier foundations for my naturalistic worldview, in order to find out facts about the universe, and then you reconcile that with your own worldview. Interesting. I consider this a victory since you haven't presented anything that requires me to reconcile any of your supernatural hypotheses with my worldview.

<strong> How in the world can you derive the conclusion that metaphysical naturalism could essentially reject methodological naturalism? It would be like rejecting one of the core foundations it's built upon. Your assertions on this matter are completely illogical Tercel.

<strong> Gotcha. The theistic approach.

<strong> Right. Each argument has a 10% chance of being true, but the event in question has an 65% chance of being true. Who are you kidding?

P(E) = number of chances favorable to event E / number of chances
Number of chances favorable to event E = 10% (or 1 chance out of 10)
= 1 / 10
= .10
= 10 % chance E actually occured
and thus a 90% chance E did NOT actually occur.

I have no idea where your equation comes from. And of course this is all pointless unless you could first derive the 10% for each argument, which will be a difficult, if not impossible task all by itself.

<strong> There you go again, defining my position for me. I have now told you what the "in principle" qualifier means (of course you could have just asked), so there shouldn?t be any more misunderstandings.

<strong> However naturalism does not say "X does not occur". Naturalism assumes that X does not occur because no one has demonstrated that X occurs AND naturalism might assume that X does not occur because all simliar types of X have likewise failed to demonstrate that they do in fact occur.

<strong> Naturalism makes no claims that "X cannot happen". That's just another straw man argument. Metaphysical naturalism is a belief - a worldview and I don't know of any naturalists that would ever talk in such absolute terms. What we will do is conclude that the chances of X being true are very low. They may even be so low that we are justified in disregarding X altogether until such time as someone demonstrates that X or types of X have a good chance of being true. That's supernaturalism for you.

<strong> Your solution is based on a straw man. Naturalism is not impossible to disprove, although it may be very difficult, particularly because its very likely true.

But all that has to be done is for you to prove that supernatural entities or forces exist and then naturalism will fall. However it will take more than the existence of a mystery for you to prove that the supernatural exists. It will take more than the mere assertion of a supernatural hypothesis for X to show that the hypothesis is actually true. This is what the "in principle" qualifier points out.

<strong> I don't have to define anything. I just have to show their reasoning is unsound as they have not shown that naturalism can never explain something - which I have done.

<strong> No I'm not. Your forgetting that methodological naturalism is a cornerstone of metaphysical naturalism. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the former. Theists have been forced to integrate methodological naturalism into their worldview and pretend it was expected all along. Of course this is a convenient but necessary excuse since they cannot demonstrate the supernatural is true. Again this is a victory for naturalism as it hasn't been forced to integrate any supernaturalistic concepts in order to work - at least not yet.

This is the challenge to supernaturalists: Demonstrate that the supernatural is real and that we must then greatly modify or otherwise abandon metaphysical naturalism.

<strong> Then what is the "supernatural"? I have no frame of reference for it. What makes something "supernatural"? (Note I'm not looking for more examples but for what the properties of supernatural entities or forces are such that I could recognize them)

<strong> Then arguing from persecution as a means to prove whatever claim your trying to prove seems useless. Many other religions and groups could make the similar claims as you do above. Christians have no lock on enduring persecution.

<strong> First of all there are no contemporaneous "opposition writings". There are scant few contemporaneous mentions of Christianity at all. It doesn't appear to have been a force to have been noticed by many except its believers until well after the first century.

Secondly, Peter supposedly "recanted" 3 times according to the biblical texts themselves.

In order for your argument to work Tercel, you need to do the following:

1. List those eyewitnesses who were persecuted directly because of their beliefs in the resurrected Jesus. (As Paul was not an eyewitness of the physically resurrected Jesus, but rather had a vision, he cannot be counted.) Please list the sources you have on which you base these supposed events.

2. Present evidence that the eyewitnesses would not have been persecuted if they had recanted their specific beliefs regarding Jesus - i.e what they had been an actual eyewitness to.

3. Explain why we should be more surprised at people who would die for a lie than we would be at those people who were willing to believe and die for their beliefs based on someone's word.

Note that none of what you have given so far meets these criteria which are necessary to prove your case.

<strong> Yeah - quite a group. Now list the names, what persecution they went through, the source of these claims, and the support that they were persecuted directly for their beliefs in the resurrected Jesus, - which is what they were supposedly eyewitnesses of and would have known to be a lie.

<strong> Please Tercel, Paul would hardly have been the only person in history to have been persecuted for his beliefs and not recanted. Paul was a convert, not an eyewitness.

<strong> No, Paul claims to have a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Visions throughout the various religions are commonplace. Paul's meeting with Peter proves nothing. It neither supports that Peter died for what he knew to be a lie nor makes Paul an eyewitness.

<strong> Well, that's your argument but I need you to actually support it. You need you to present evidence that Stephen was an eyewitness and that he was killed for his beliefs regarding the resurected Jesus and not for some other charge. You need to present evidence that persecutors really cared whether he recanted his beliefs or not. I hope you don?t think mere assertions or suppositions are going to make your case for you.

<strong> So you agree that you don't have eyewitness testimony in this case and you agree that Stephen could easily have been a convert, not an actual eyewitness. That's a start. Now present the details of their persecution, including what they were being persecuted for so we can know your whole case isn't based on wishful thinking and supposition.

<strong> More recognition of the fact that all you have is a second hand source. Again - that's good. As for your assumption that "it could only have been because of his preaching", that's completely unsupported. Preaching of what? - What he was supposedly a witness of, or something else entirely?

<strong> But no details as to what persecution he endured, if he ever recanted, if he was persecuted directly for his beliefs in the resurrected Jesus to which he was supposedly a witness? - weak Tercel, very weak.

<strong> Yep, but of course many people throughout history have endured considerable persecution for their beliefs. Christianity hardly has the market cornered on that. This asssertion that "many people" were eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection and that many people died or were otherwise persecuted because of their refusal to recant their belief in this regard has not been supported at all. So far you've completely failed to tie in one single eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus being persecuted for their specific beliefs regarding him.

<strong> Which is a supposition on your part, not supportable fact as my critique of your arguments has shown.

<strong> Even according to Paul himself, he was not an eyewitness of the physically resurrected Jesus. He had a vision.

<strong> I can pick up thousands of books of fiction that are "historically accurate". Big deal.

<strong> Er... the point would be that you don't have the eyewitness testimony you claim you have. You have second hand sources claiming there were eyewitnesses - a much different thing.

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Tercel

I don't see why you say this.
Remember, many of the early scientists were Christian Theists, they believed their science (via Methodological naturalism) could work because of God.

There are an awful lot of stories of persecutions. Some of them I would agree are pretty doubtful as to their authenticity. The ones I listed previously are for the most part pretty clear cut however.

Pliny the Younger encountered Christianity for the first time in c112 AD: Since no witnesses of the resurrection were alive by then, how does it have any relevance? I did say "major" recantations too. Thirdly, even Pliny himself appears unsure that those he had gotten to curse Christ were in fact Christians.

Hardly. Paul mentions that:
* Jesus was "born of a women, born under law" (Gal 4:4)
* Jesus was partly human in nature and a descendant of King David (Rom 1:3)
* Jesus taught against divorce (1 Cor 7:10)
* Jesus taught that preachers should be paid for their work (1 Cor 9:14)
* Jesus spoke about the end-times (1 Thess 4:15)
* Jesus had a brother named James (Gal 1:19)
* Jesus was present at the Last Supper which took place "on the night he was betrayed" (1 Cor 11:23-25)
* Jesus died at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Cor 2:8)
* Jews were responsible for Jesus' death (1 Thess 2:14-16)
* Jesus died by crucifixion (2 Cor 13:4 and many others)
* Jesus was physically buried (1 Cor 15:4)

All these things come from Paul’s "undisputed" letters. Not really very silent on the Earthly Jesus at all, was he? Not to mention that Paul's whole theology of us having a Physical Resurrection (see the rest of 1 Cor 15) makes no sense whatsoever if Paul believed in only a spiritual resurrection of Jesus.

Multiple people having the same vision? Now that is impressive!

Haven't we covered this enough? They weren't alleged witnesses to anything. If the whole thing was a lie then they weren't to know. It only convinces me they sincerely believed what they believed.

The difference between the genres is pretty obvious. It’s not as if we are worried about whether the historian Tacitus was writing history or historical fiction: It’s obvious he was writing a history. Luke/Acts is clearly intended to be a historically accurate account. You only need to read the introduction to Luke to see that. That the writer includes so many historical details that we can check that it is indeed an historically accurate account is simply an added plum in the pudding. Only pure wishful thinking can suggest anything other than that Luke is intended to be accurate history.

As far as the Illiad goes, I am given to understand it was written by a Bard some centuries after the supposed events took place and that the only confirmation we have of the truth of events related in the tale is that archaeologists have found the site of Troy and it looks like it may well have fallen in battle.

Tercel

Pomp

Tercel,

All these things come from Paul’s "undisputed" letters. Not really very silent on the Earthly Jesus at all, was he? Not to mention that Paul's whole theology of us having a Physical Resurrection (see the rest of 1 Cor 15) makes no sense whatsoever if Paul believed in only a spiritual resurrection of Jesus.

I don't think the point was that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection. I believe the point was that Paul does not count as an eyewitness.

Multiple people having the same vision? Now that is impressive!

This is precisely why I believe that thin, hairless, large-eyed aliens have been abducting humans beings for years for medical experimentation.

Sorry to cherry-pick.

madmax2976

<strong> Methodological naturalism came about because supernaturalism had utterly failed to explain anything. That continues to be the case today.

<strong> Are they clear in regards to your argument however?

You’ve mentioned: “Peter (aka Simon), Andrew brother of Peter, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew (aka Levi), Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Patriot, Judas (aka Thaddaeus) son of James, Cleopas, Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joseph (aka Barsabbas aka Justus), Matthias, James the Brother of Jesus, and Paul. As well as some 500 others according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.” And you’ve also mentioned Stephen.

An impressive looking list, but does it support the argument concerning anyone willing to “die for a lie”?

The 500: We can scratch them out immediately. These are the worst of the lot, a completely anonymous group, even assuming they actually existed. There is no evidence at all these supposed eyewitnesses were persecuted for anything they knew to be a lie.

James the brother of Jesus: Where is the link between what he was supposedly an eyewitness of and any persecution directly for that or any opportunity to recant his beliefs?

As for Matthias, Cleopas, Simon, Mary, Joseph, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Patriot, Judas the son of James, Philip, Bartholomew, James and John, and Andrew, you haven’t presented a single shred of evidence indicating they were persecuted for something they knew to be a lie. (i.e. that they were an eyewitness of)

Peter: Where is the link showing that Peter died for what he knew to be a lie? Where is the link demonstrating he had an opportunity to recant? We have it from the biblical texts themselves that Peter did recant at one point.

Stephen: Where is the link showing that Stephen was an eyewitness of anything? Supposition? What was Stephen killed for – something he believed in and was an eyewitness of such that he would have known it to be a lie or for some other reason?

Paul: Paul was only an “eyewitness” of his vision and therefore does not fit your argument at all. Even if it could be shown that he was an actual eyewitness of something else, you haven’t drawn the link between any persecution he endured and his beliefs which he would have known to have been a lie.

This “die for a lie” argument seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors so far.

madmax2976

I'm still continuing to look for support for a single eyewitness being persecuted and/or dying for some specific belief, for which they would have been in a position to have known was a lie, and for which they would have been been able to recant.

So far zilch.... but hey, I'm still looking...

David Gould

Tercel wrote:


This was in response to a query regading how can 10 1/10 chances lead to the probability of their being a god.

Now, I do not know stats but I suspect this is nonsense.

UFO abductions are my favourite things.

Apparantly, 2 million people believe they have been abducted by aliens at some point in their lives.

Now, if any one of these 2 million stories is true, UFO abductions are real.

Two million is a very large number.

.9999996 ^2,000,000 = 44.9 per cent.

If there is a 1 in 2.5 million chance that any one claim is true then I must accept that the truth of UFO abductions is 55.1 per cent likely.

Any takers on the UFO abductions?

But where did my 1 in 2.5 million figure come from?

I made it up.

Simple, isn't it, to prove the likelihood of god when you make stuff up?

Almost makes you think that they made the whole thing up.

Almost?

Edited to add: If Tercel chose 1 in 20 for his 10 evidences, he would be left with a 40 per cent chance of his god existing...

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]</p>

Tercel

I do know stats. It's not nonsense and it's not even a remotely difficult calculation.

But do we agree as to the existence of UFO's?

Note that I assumed the events were independent in my calculation. In the case of rational arguments, this assumption might be reasonable - the probability of success of one argument generally doesn't influence the probability of success of a different argument.
However with UFO abduction claims, independence is clearly a very bad assumption. Many people will no doubt claim to have been abducted because they've heard others claim it.