Datheron

Madmax2976,

Right - in part, that is what I'm saying.

First, I'm objecting to the fact that the events themselves are not independent, as defined by probability theory. If they are not independent, then they cannot fit into Tercel's formula.

And secondly, I'm also with you, in questioning whether arguments themselves are suitable to be used as probability. Like I said in my previous post, probability is the likelihood of some outcome, and arguments by definition require rock-solid logic, which means that only one outcome is possible.

Tercel

It is, I suppose, possible that some could be later insertions. However unless you are going to argue that they are all later insertions, your Christ as only a vision to Paul idea would seem to have serious problems.

Except that the alleged resurrection appearences apparently took place before several different groups of people at different times and different places.

brighid

I have serious problems using dreams or visions as accurate interpretative models for anything, but most certainly for the authenticity and accuracy of Resurrection tales or as evidence for a divine being. Why should one interpret the origins of such a visions as anything other than the mind and if it is attributed to a supernatural being why this God and not Satan? And why would one accept the vision, dream or hallucination of anyone as being substantive, regardless of the context? I have had dreams with all sorts of interesting characters, from vampires to fairies, to Gods and Goddesses, etc. Is this proof of their existence? Hardly! It is however proof of my subconscious imagination at work and surprisingly I usually have dreams with these mythical beings in it after having read about one, or seen a movie with such characters in it, or perhaps read a story, otherwise they are symbolic to events going on in my life but not REAL!

And as far as the multiple attestations to resurrection sightings all we know is what someone wrote down what these people thought they saw and did so many decades to centuries later. Why put “faith” in these things? Why put any sort of belief in ideas that are built on such flimsy foundations? So, some guy wrote a story about what either people told others (or him) what they truly believe the saw, or he simply made up a story about these people and fictionalized the events to support a growing movement of religious devotion and perhaps he really wrote down the “truth.” What makes this information TRUE? Belief is not adequate and faith is such a bogus claim, especially because one could place “faith” in anything and everything and make it firmly held belief and BELIEVE in it’s truth. However, faith does not make something true, it only makes it an idea assumed to be true without evidence!

What kind of God wants His/Her followers to believe whatever the Hell someone throws out there as true? How does a believer test which parts are the true words of this God and which ones are interpolations of man, or worse their Great Satan? Doesn’t this being have great powers to trick and seduce man into committing all sort of sins, isn’t this being charming, charismatic, cunning, beguiling, deceitful and capable of supernatural feats almost equal to the Christian God?

So why is all of this not a trick, or a hoax perpetrated by this Demon to lure the world away from the True God, cause dissent, confusion and hatred amongst the followers of this “Good News” and give man a righteous indignation to commit all sorts of atrocities with the golden seal of approval from their Holy Texts and therefore, their God? Well, it seems that this is indeed the case. Christianity has 38,000 denominations (and counting) and few can agree with one another as to who has the proper interpretation and therefore is the “Truest Christian.” Genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, torture, molestations, deceit, pillaging, betrayal, dissention, heresies, Inquisitions, pogroms, burnings, hangings, and numerous wars have been committed because of the Holy Book (and others.) The claim of Christianity is that it is love, compassion, mercy and justice and yet somehow, over and over again, up and through to this very day men and women kill for this God, this god of perfect love, of pure light and beauty! How can the Bible be the work of such a being? How can such a vile and hideous book be a creation of anything but a Demon, sent to the world as God sent Satan in the book of Job to test man? And claiming that a God wants man to rely on faith and not knowledge has been this demons most powerful tool – anything can be committed in the name of God – have faith, be blind, forget knowing and ye shall surely be saved!

The proof of the truth of the Christian claim is as the cliché goes “in the pudding” and the pudding isn’t sweet! The theist, specifically the Christian has no more proof that their religion isn’t founded by a demon, then the do it is founded by a God and more specifically the one and ONLY God!

Perhaps the Gnostics had it right and this Yahweh is really a demiurge, a petulant child-like God, a mutation, an awful mutation. Perhaps this Pure God did send this man Jesus as a messenger of love, humility, generosity and compassion and amidst it all the minions of Yahweh overtook that message when it was commanded by a Roman Emperor to be settled upon. Thereby loosing it’s original light; only to have such messages loosely thrown into Scripture for is not this world the dominion of the Great Satan, hence necessitating the coming of a Savior? Perhaps this is the reason Gnostics were persecuted and subverted and their message suppressed and censored, almost to the point of complete annihilation.

Christianity cannot be the work of a loving God and Christians have likely been tricked by the very demon they seek to oppose because they have excluded the use of logic and reason in favor of belief and faith. And if there is a God he must be ashamed for the message of generosity, love, compassion, mercy and justice has but all been lost in favor of power, greed, control and the need to be right over all things. How any man or woman can follow this monster depicted in the Bible in favor of a gentle, kind, loving and compassionate being is beyond me.


Brighid

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

tronvillain

Assuming that an argument is valid, the probability that it is sound is the probability that its premises are true.

Now, let us say that one has ten valid arguments for a given conclusion, and that one estimates the probability of each of their premises being true to be ten percent. If it is discovered that the conclusion is true, what is the probability that a given argument is sound? It remains ten percent, the probability that its premises are true. If it is discovered that the conclusion is false, what is the probability that a given argument is sound? It is zero, and at least one of its premises must be false.

So, what are are we to say of the probability of the conclusion given that we have ten valid arguments for it, each with a probability of ten percent? Well, if we assume that there are no premises in common and that the premises are independent, then 0.65 appears to be the answer. Of course, it's early and I may have missed something.

Relating this to the existence of God would be extremely difficult though.

Jefferson

dear decieved christian,
first of all you have no proof whatsoever. The bible is not proof, just like if I wrote a story about the easter bunny that wouldnt be proof either,neither are Josephuses writings proof. Why would he be writing about Ponchus Pilot and then all of a sudden start talking about Jesus,not to mention that his style of writing was different on that part. God doesnt love you because he doesnt exsist and never will, no matter how much you want him to.

Tercel

Hi Jefferson,
I do not think the Bible constitutes a proof in and of itself insofar as I do not believe simply because "the Bible says so".

As far as Josephus' references to Jesus go, the Antiquities 18 reference is agreed by the majority of scholars to have been orginally written by Josephus but has been modified by a Christian copier later. The Antiquities 20 reference stands on stronger ground -being accepted by most all scholars- and it is quoted twice by Origen (who wrote when Christians were still a persecuted minority).

I know God loves me because I've felt his love. It's not a matter of me "wanting" him to exist, but whether I'm foolish enough to deny my own experiences.

atheist_in_foxhole

Did your god love those poor people at the world trade center who were forced to jump 1,500 feet to their deaths on the streets below in order to avoid the flames?

Did your god love the 200,000 men, women, and children who drowned in that flood in Bangladesh a few years back?

Did your god love all the millions of dinosaurs and other creatures that were killed when that asteroid hit?

Does your god love the 25,000+ children who starve to death in third world countries each and every day?

If so, that's a bizarre way of showing love. What's even more bizarre is that you would love this being in return. In many ways it's similar to how abused wives continue to love their husbands even though he beats her on a regular basis.

And if you truly feel a god's "love" like you say, how do you know that it's the Christian god and not one of the thousands of other gods worshipped throughout history? How do you know that it's not Zeus or Allah or the IPU?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

hal9000

Interesting that luvluv and Atticus avoid <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000122" target="_blank">This thread.</a> This is a line of thought they have no answer for. But you wouldn’t be the first theist to fail to find an answer to this thread, and you won’t be the last.

Daydreamer

And you can with absolute certainty eliminate the possibility that you're psychologically projecting your needs and wants how?

luvluv

How can you with absolute certainty eliminate the possibility of anything?

Can you with absoulte certainty eliminate the possibility that God exists?

NO, you BELIEVE He doesn't exist because of your own personal experiences. Your disbelief in god involves the same leap of faith that our belief does inasmuch as it exceeds the constraints of absolute knowledge.