Wyz_sub10

I assume nothing. I'm aware there can be different kinds of evidence. But if you are implying that evidence need not be testable, then I would disagree.

That's circular reasoning. Hindus would make similar claims about their holy writings. As you can see, it becomes soley a matter of opinion, making this evidence "meaningless" for any third party.

To begin with, I noted that physical evidence surrounding the physical claims of the bible would be a start in establishing credibility.

But as to your specific points, most evidence produced wouldn't support diety as much as they would stress the point of something difficult to account for. If there were Jewish preisthood accounts or Roman government accounts of the resurrection, that would be something.

Of similarly, third-party accounts of Jesus's miracles, or a history of the region more consistent with the New Testament accounts.

The deity connection is almost impossible to make, by nature. But some evidence of Jesus' ministry and immediate effect would be a start.

As for significance, in the sense that the events that allegedly transpired "mean" something, well, that is up to the individual. I don't demand evidence that Christianity means something to you. I can accept your word for it.

Wyz_sub10

That's fine, theo, but then it cannot taken with the same level of trust or reliability.

In essence, you are saying that "knowlege" gained through revelation is not the same as empiracal knowledge. If that is the case, then it cannot be presented with the same weight - IOW, one should not be expected to receive it the same way.

Nooooooo...the evidence is absolutely not overwhelming. Yes, many of the OT battles took place, many of the kings existed, many of the events transpired. It is true that *much* of the OT history occurred. (Although you will get differing perspectives of who won what battle, etc.)

But as for Noah's Ark or a mass exodus, sorry - the evidence speaks against it. In fact, the entire timeline of the OT is called into question based on the evidence - bedouin artefacts, bronze age sites, neighbouring historical accounts, the presence of certain domesticated animals, etc.

It's not an archaeological witch hunt to discredit the bible, but during the course of research, when certain facts arise and support 'scenario A' over 'scenario b', then you begin to develop a new theory of what actualy transpired.

Agreed.

No, it's not me that does the interpreting. I am neither a geologist nor an anthropologist.

I let the experts do the interpreting and I try to comprehend their arguments. There is no evidence - zero - for a global flood. (unless you mean something else by using "universal").

Please provide some sources for this evidence from non-creationist or Christian sites or publications.

There is a reason I ask this - bias, is one. But also, if there is evidence for it, then it will exist in mainstream research circles, irrelevent to its possible significance.

Wyz_sub10

Repulsion is a product of our connection to what we perceive as right and wrong. A killer who is not repulse does not feel he is wrong - he feels justified in doing what he does.

A killer who is remorseful experiences that repulsion. Unfortunately, it comes far too late to be useful.

"Right" and "Wrong" are very useful concepts in a highly complex social society. That's why they exist. Simply societies are founded by those with hard-wired concepts of basic wonrgs. Complex societies examine, refine and expand these concepts as necessary.

We have highly defined senses of self and identity. This contributes highly to our view of things that are right and wrong.

You are likely repulsed because you associate the blood and butchering with violence and a connection to your own vulnerability. You are not sorry for the cow, are you? You relate the effects to yourself.

Of course, many would disagree with you about butchering a cow being okay. I'm not one of them, but they exist. How do you justify your morality in this situation versus theirs?

No, what I posit here is a biological response to millions of years of evolution. I can absolutely fault someone who doesn't share my views because I can demonstrate that their actions are counter to the maintenance of a sustainable society. Do you disagree that society would be unsustainable if we killed people as we saw fit or for whatever reason we chose, individually?

It's important to society, to our species' survival, that you care about that child. If you don't (but were not involved), I cannot necessarily punish you, but I'll sure be wary of you in my neighbourhood.

Begging the question is using circular reasoning. I am not doing this - our moral sense comes from natural selection that favours human cooperation and, therefore, a need for compassion and a sustainable society.

You need to educate yourself on evolution. The fact that you find it repugnant to your self-esteem and cherished beliefs does not make it invalid.

'Evolution' is the name ascribed to the process by which certain traits are past on, and certain traits are not.

I doubt you reject the biological sciences as a whole, and I doubt you dismiss theories of electromagnetism, for example.

"Man's development" is an immaterial concept if you describe it as some kind of purpose or ultimate goal. I'm doing neither. We are where we are now. We didn't have to be at this point, but we are. To get here, we had to live together, invent, build, introduce social rules.

I am not implying that evolution or social development "directed" us here. This is simply where we wound up. I'm referring to the mechanisms that caused us to get here.

We had to care about a sustainable society because, in case you have not noticed, we can't compete with most animals one-on-one. Physically, we could survive in a solitary situation perhaps as a scavenger or herbivores.

But somewhere along the line we developed a favourable trait that provided an advantage - a social awareness. By working together, 10 people could overpower 2. Groups of humans could better survive against predators. They could forage more food and, eventually, could establish societies.

All of the above cannot work if there is no concern or care for one another. It can work for grizzlies, but then again they are a little stronger, faster and physically superior to us.

It's only circular if you reject evolution outright, which you appear to do. 'Detestable' is simply a description of the result. I am not trying to show how morality exists as a "function of matter". I am showing how the application of concepts you call "morality" are products of evolution, with human cooperative survival being the natural selector.

By jove, I think you've got it!

Yes, it is completely self-serving, and yes, it is wrong to kill because of the repercussions of killing.

But we are intelligent enough, as a species, to recognize the value in it and to cherish it (and teach it to our children). I can see the value in my fellow human beings, but in the end, it's all how it relates to me and those around me.

You can argue otherwise - take a high moral ground and insist that you are less selfish and care more for life than I. But ask yourself - do you weep equally for every innocent death? If morality is absolute, why are you not equally affected by similar (if not identical) amoral acts?

I said sustained concern. It's all well and good to say "don't kill", then endorse genocide, murder of children, etc. If the "don't kill" theme was pervasive throughout, then fine. But it ain't.

Glad we agree on one thing.

Why do I have to provide an "objective, immaterial standard"? All I have to do is show why this is problematic. I think it's pretty clear that few people could survive in the current world if all considerations of life, property and cooperation were abandoned.

I like this world, and I like my life. So I'd rather people didn't commit murder and destroy property willy-nilly. I'm also aware that others feel as I do. I'm grateful for this because it helps ensure that our social rules don't breakdown.

But here's my problem (since you asked) - you preach morality and justice, yet refer to a book that contains endorsements of the very things you claim to be objectively wrong. That's my problem.

theophilus

Physician, heal thyself!

It is the very act of denial that demonstrates the rebellion.

No avowed allegiance is required. If the authority is legitimate, obediance is obligatory.

Try telling the judge you weren't in violation of the law because you never "promised allegiance," to obey.

theophilus

The only "meaning" is what God assigns to his revelation.

Hawkingfan

And it's the very same act of denial that demonstrates YOUR rebellion against Allah, the one TRUE god; which is exactly why Allah will send you to hell.
Try telling Allah you weren't in violation of the Qu'ran because you never "promised allegiance" to obey him.

theophilus

Well, that's your problem. You assume some system (purely subjective) and then criticize the Bible because it does not (appear) to meet your standard (incidentally, I haven't "preached" morality here - this is the type of caricature criticism of apologists which make meaningful discussion difficult).
I "refer" to the book because it is the only means by which we can account for the immaterial nature of moral concepts.

Contrary to your misrepresentation above, morality isn't socially conventional. Though moral standards may vary slightly between cultures, the concept of morality and the conscience which monitors our conduct are foundational aspects of human experience and CANNOT be accounted for materialistically.

The fact that you have a preference for living doesn't bind me to observe that and I could not be faulted, by your standard, for killing you.

The assertion that morality was "developed" or "evolved" as a way of having stable societies begs the question. You would first have to care about having stable societies to develop a system.

The fact that a killer may have no remorse for his actions shows that these are not "hard-wired," i.e., material, components of human biology.

The foundation for all criminal law is the concept that certain activities are wrong; not merely repulsive or harmful to "stable societies," but fundamentally, inherently wrong.

theophilus

Another clever, but meaningless post.

Diana, where are you with your chiding?

theophilus

Posted by Wyz_sub10

In essence, you are saying that "knowlege" gained through revelation is not the same as empiracal knowledge. If that is the case, then it cannot be presented with the same weight - IOW, one should not be expected to receive it the same way.

No, I challenge the notion that you have any valid test for truth or that any type of knowledge is possible unless you assume (unacknowledged) the Christian worldview, based on God and his revelation.

Empiricism and rationalism, the only systems avaialbe to materialists, are notoriously unreliable and cannot account for the nature of human experience which, contrary to evolutionary scenarios, is not primarily biological. The pursuit of knowledge itself is not a biological function.

Hawkingfan

Now you're getting it. That is exactly what we think of yours. See what it feels like?