Continued Discussion With Lnc

[LNC]

Second, for LNC, where does it say Jesus was actually dead three days? I think you are confusing the so-called prophesy from the OT with what it says happened in the NT. Like most of those OT prophesies they require quite a bit of stretching and bending to make them fit.

 

Died on Friday rose on Sunday. Here is the text to indicate that.

 

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Mark 15:42

 

The Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (the way that the Jews counted days).

 

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

 

This would indicate Sunday (after the Sabbath, toward dawn). Friday + Saturday + Sunday = three days. However, you also have to know that the people of this time weren't so literal in their counting to equate three days with three 24 hour periods. Any part of the day would count toward that day.

[LNC]

 

Resurrection - please, again read up in the field before making these ludicrous statements. There is all kinds of evidence outside of the NT

 

 

BULLSHIT. Purely and simply. There is NO evidence ANYWHERE else but the 'gospels' for 'the resurrection,' saying there is DOESN'T make it so. You've posted it before, post it again, you post all kinds of other shit over and over and over. 'The resurrection' is MYTH, PERIOD. And stop being such an insulting little prick.

 

First of all, I have not been insulting and find it quite strange that someone who has called me a name would even dare to accuse me of such. Second, I have given you evidence from the NT that is not disputed by the vast majority of NT scholars and you simply ignore it without cause. Third, I don't believe that pointing you to other evidence again would sway you.

 

I have posted reasons that the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, maybe you can interact with those and let me know why they are not reliable, if you believe so. However, if you are going to dismiss the NT, you should also give a valid reason for doing so.

 

If you are simply about calling names and dismissing arguments in anger, then there is not much I can do for you, sorry.

[Astreja]

...I have given you evidence from the NT that is not disputed by the vast majority of NT scholars and you simply ignore it without cause.

'Without cause'? I hardly think so.

 

Your evidence is equivalent to accounts of Gandalf the Grey returning as Gandalf the White, not disputed by the vast majority of Lord of the Rings fans. All you've shown us is circular logic with a slipknot called 'NT scholars' tied in the loop.

[oddbird1963]

 

First of all, I have not been insulting . . .. Second, I have given you evidence from the NT that is not disputed by the vast majority of NT scholars and you simply ignore it without cause. Third, I don't believe that pointing you to other evidence again would sway you.

 

I have posted reasons that the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, maybe you can interact with those and let me know why they are not reliable, if you believe so. However, if you are going to dismiss the NT, you should also give a valid reason for doing so.

 

If you are simply about calling names and dismissing arguments in anger, then there is not much I can do for you, sorry.

 

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

 

Your argument is obviously ineffective because people keep telling you : it doesn't add up. The line of argument alone is insufficient. But persist , if you must.

 

Just go back and read your own posts. If you don't see it, then I suppose you'll have to wait a few years until the damage is done.

[bdp]

First of all, I have not been insulting and find it quite strange that someone who has called me a name would even dare to accuse me of such. Second, I have given you evidence from the NT that is not disputed by the vast majority of NT scholars and you simply ignore it without cause. Third, I don't believe that pointing you to other evidence again would sway you.

 

I have posted reasons that the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, maybe you can interact with those and let me know why they are not reliable, if you believe so. However, if you are going to dismiss the NT, you should also give a valid reason for doing so.

 

If you are simply about calling names and dismissing arguments in anger, then there is not much I can do for you, sorry.

 

I do regret having taken that tone here and elsewhere with you, and I apologize for my vulgarity. I confess to sometimes taking out aggression here for personal matters - I have done so to non-Christian members as well, if I'm in a mood anything that gets in the way gets a taste of it and I'm sorry for that.

 

'NT scholars' means nothing to me - I have a mind of my own, I don't need anyone to tell me what to think or believe. I don't ignore, I dismiss, and with just cause.

 

I can't believe the resurrection is the best explanation because I can't believe it ever happened. I dismiss those accounts of it in the gospels because they don't agree in any way, and because there IS no account of a resurrection in them, just of an empty tomb, and I consider all of it to be fiction.

 

Don't feel bad about not being able to do much for me, I'm not asking you to. I know what I do and don't believe and why. However you do come off as condescending - I don't take personal offense but I don't like to see other members here talked down to. I don't honestly have any personal quarrel with you and my tendency to lash out is something I don't like about myself. Again I apologize - peace.

[Mriana]

Second, for LNC, where does it say Jesus was actually dead three days? I think you are confusing the so-called prophesy from the OT with what it says happened in the NT. Like most of those OT prophesies they require quite a bit of stretching and bending to make them fit.

 

Died on Friday rose on Sunday. Here is the text to indicate that.

 

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Mark 15:42

 

The Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (the way that the Jews counted days).

 

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

 

This would indicate Sunday (after the Sabbath, toward dawn). Friday + Saturday + Sunday = three days. However, you also have to know that the people of this time weren't so literal in their counting to equate three days with three 24 hour periods. Any part of the day would count toward that day.

 

She right about the figuring of the days, EXCEPT it still does not equate a full 36 hours. Secondly, depending on which gospel you read, there is anywhere from one woman to three women, except in Mark the last was tacked on later (Mark16: 9-20), much later and not by the same author and it's not original (see footnotes of one's Bible for evidence, if you like. "They are lacking in the Codes Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus"), so it is hard to say how many he appeared to, but apparently just one Mary. So there is still a problem with the story. That and since Jesus rose around sunrise, we have evidence of astro-theology, which explains the sunrise services on Easter Sunday. The whole story is astro-theology and has nothing to do with a real man.

 

Matt: 2 women (2 Marys to be exact), Mark 3 women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (I believe AKA Mother Mary), and Salome). OK here is where it is confusing. In verses 1-8 he appeared to 3 women, but in 9 to just Mary Magdalene. Luke 3 named women (Mary Magdelene, Joanna, and Mother Mary) plus "other women". 24:1 says, "They and certain other women with them, came to the tomb". John it is just Mary Magdalene who goes to the tomb. So the stories have issues with accountability and that is just for starters. Since it is another katabasis story, it is difficult to say how this happened, BUT since the other 3 wrote off what Mark wrote, it is a crap shoot as to why the number of women vary and why the number varies between the original 8 verses in Mark and the tact on verses 9-20. The other three writers did not refer to each other as to how the story should go, obviously and none of them were eyewitnesses because they were just writing a story, embellishing off Mark before any copyrights and pulling from various other mythologies at the same time.

[Mriana]

 

First of all, I have not been insulting . . .. Second, I have given you evidence from the NT that is not disputed by the vast majority of NT scholars and you simply ignore it without cause. Third, I don't believe that pointing you to other evidence again would sway you.

 

I have posted reasons that the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, maybe you can interact with those and let me know why they are not reliable, if you believe so. However, if you are going to dismiss the NT, you should also give a valid reason for doing so.

 

If you are simply about calling names and dismissing arguments in anger, then there is not much I can do for you, sorry.

 

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

 

Your argument is obviously ineffective because people keep telling you : it doesn't add up. The line of argument alone is insufficient. But persist , if you must.

 

Just go back and read your own posts. If you don't see it, then I suppose you'll have to wait a few years until the damage is done.

 

And don't forget arrogant. It's as though he thinks we haven't done our homework. I have studied this for more years than I care to count along with other texts outside the Bible and Xianity.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

 

It makes me wonder if LNC has ever repented for any sins in his life as he constantly denies any wrong doing on his part but will gladly point out when other people are being mean bullies and whine about how he's been treated. But then when you point out he has a martyr complex, he turns around and denies it and says he enjoys posting here after he just got done whining about the people here. What was that Proverbs said about the fool who ignores instructions?

[centauri]

Second, for LNC, where does it say Jesus was actually dead three days? I think you are confusing the so-called prophesy from the OT with what it says happened in the NT. Like most of those OT prophesies they require quite a bit of stretching and bending to make them fit.

 

Died on Friday rose on Sunday. Here is the text to indicate that.

 

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Mark 15:42

 

The Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (the way that the Jews counted days).

 

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

 

This would indicate Sunday (after the Sabbath, toward dawn). Friday + Saturday + Sunday = three days. However, you also have to know that the people of this time weren't so literal in their counting to equate three days with three 24 hour periods. Any part of the day would count toward that day.

 

She right about the figuring of the days, EXCEPT it still does not equate a full 36 hours.

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

Jesus was only in the grave for 3 days and 2 nights according to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, and 2 days and 2 nights according to John. Although Jesus didn't have to be in the grave for 72 hours, he did have to be there on portions of 6 separate 12 hour time periods.

That would total a minimum of 50 hours.

Jesus was only in the grave approximately 38 hours.

Even accommodating Jesus by counting a portion of a 12 hour period as a full period doesn't help Jesus.

[oddbird1963]

 

It makes me wonder if LNC has ever repented for any sins in his life as he constantly denies any wrong doing on his part but will gladly point out when other people are being mean bullies and whine about how he's been treated. But then when you point out he has a martyr complex, he turns around and denies it and says he enjoys posting here after he just got done whining about the people here. What was that Proverbs said about the fool who ignores instructions?

 

I rather suspect that , either consciously or unconsciously, he is trying to score rhetorical points after the fashion of his apologetic mentors. He has consistently gotten the message that his reasoning and his approach leave a lot to be desired, but he still keeps engaging in what appears to be a repetitious rhetorical strategy rather than true dialog. Phanta said it sounded like academic discourse. That may be true. But appeals to authority, jumping on the bandwagon and ad hominem attacks are not academic; they are rhetorical ploys, however, designed to win a debate.

 

The question is, "What audience is LNC appealing to?"

[Ouroboros]

The question is, "What audience is LNC appealing to?"

Those who feed the troll.

 

The monkey making a spectacle, in hopes of getting a banana.

[mwc]

Wow, that is an interesting take on Galatians, I am not sure that I have heard anyone expound it that way - very creative. Unfortunately, you have missed the message of Galatians almost completely. Yes, there was a group of people in the region Galatia (and elsewhere, for that matter) called Judaizers. These were people who believed that one had to still follow the law even after Jesus' death on the cross. This wasn't a new movement as they are written about quite widely in Acts. They were following Paul around and causing disturbances nearly everywhere he went. It was the reason for the meeting in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Fortunately it wasn't meant to be a commentary on the whole of Galatians. Just the idea that Paul was losing out to another group. The other group, essentially unknown to us, probably was upset they were losing out to Paul. Both were likely mud slinging the others and accusing them of corrupting the gospel.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

Second, for LNC, where does it say Jesus was actually dead three days? I think you are confusing the so-called prophesy from the OT with what it says happened in the NT. Like most of those OT prophesies they require quite a bit of stretching and bending to make them fit.

 

Died on Friday rose on Sunday. Here is the text to indicate that.

 

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Mark 15:42

 

The Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (the way that the Jews counted days).

 

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

 

This would indicate Sunday (after the Sabbath, toward dawn). Friday + Saturday + Sunday = three days. However, you also have to know that the people of this time weren't so literal in their counting to equate three days with three 24 hour periods. Any part of the day would count toward that day.

 

She right about the figuring of the days, EXCEPT it still does not equate a full 36 hours.

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

Jesus was only in the grave for 3 days and 2 nights according to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, and 2 days and 2 nights according to John. Although Jesus didn't have to be in the grave for 72 hours, he did have to be there on portions of 6 separate 12 hour time periods.

That would total a minimum of 50 hours.

Jesus was only in the grave approximately 38 hours.

Even accommodating Jesus by counting a portion of a 12 hour period as a full period doesn't help Jesus.

 

lol Yes, 72. I don't know where my head was when I said 36. (Mriana hides due to her embarrassing math problems) Or it could be, as you pointed out, the differences in the times that caused my brain to spin. Not uncommon for me to get confused and befuddled when it comes to all the contradictions in the Bible. It's no wonder Xians can't keep their stories straight, because the Bible doesn't keep the stories straight.

[mwc]

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

In those days anonymous people who wrote under the name Matthew weren't so literal in their usage of "days" and "nights" when used in allegorical terms when trying to relate to non-prophecies about people who lived inside fish.

 

Why don't you ignorant skeptics try reading a book on these things some time? These were very common practices.

 

mwc

[Guest Davka]

Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist?

 

Sodom and Gomorrah, for starters.

 

And how do you know this?

 

Because there is zero archaeological evidence of any cities ever existing in the area where the Bible says Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

 

In fact, the archaeological record rather consistently contradicts the Biblical record. Not only with regard to the existence of cities, but also the time and manner in which the cities which did exist were conquered, and the time and manner in which the Hebrews entered Israel.

[Guest Davka]

If you can explain how matter came to be, then I am interested in hearing your explanation.

 

Easy. Matter always was. It has always existed, in one form or another.

 

Remember, energy = mass (matter) times the speed of light squared. Matter, heat, light, energy - all different forms of the same thing. As far back as we've been able to figure thus far, all matter/energy/light was compressed into a singularity about 13 billion years ago. Before that, who knows.

 

It's no mystery. You don't need to invent a god who "always was" in order to explain a Universe that always was.

 

The Universe is uncreated existence. There is no god.

 

Can you give me your scientific basis for such a belief? I would also be interested in how you make it work logically. From what I have read of science, your view is not supported by the best scientific understanding. I have read Davies, Guth, Borde, Vilenkin, Hawking, and others, and don't find your view to be supported by them.

 

Read again.

 

What I have written above is shorthand, but it's pretty much what all the writers you cite have to say on the subject. The nature of reality "prior" to the Big Bang (I put "prior" in quotation marks because time itself -- as we know it -- appears to have begun at the Big Bang) is unknown, but there is no theory I know of which states that the singularity came from nothing. Space/time/energy changed form, but it did not appear out of nowhere.

 

Hawking postulates a "dual cone" of existence, with space/time running "backward" on the other side of the Big Bang, but he does not postulate something from nothing, and neither do any other scientists I've read. There is speculation of a "first cause," but that is not the same as a creator.

 

Like I said, read again. You appear to have missed something.

[centauri]

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

In those days anonymous people who wrote under the name Matthew weren't so literal in their usage of "days" and "nights" when used in allegorical terms when trying to relate to non-prophecies about people who lived inside fish.

 

Why don't you ignorant skeptics try reading a book on these things some time? These were very common practices.

 

mwc

That's what I loved about Christianity when it was trying very hard to steer me into its giant maw.

A preacher would claim that Jesus literally fulfilled a 490 year prophecy in Dan 9 to the exact day, while claiming that Matt 12:40 was only a symbolic prophecy, not meant to be taken literally.

These people could rationalize the ears off of a jack rabbit.

[LNC]

The 'Easter morning' accounts in 'the gospels' are NOT eyewitness accounts but hearsay, and these hearsay accounts speak ONLY of the discovery of an empty tomb - NOBODY in the 'gopsels' witnesses any 'resurrection.'

 

It is true that there is no record of anyone having witnessed the actual resurrection; however, it is recorded that many saw the risen Jesus. So, even though no one may have witnessed the actual event (and we don't know that no one did, we just don't have a record of those accounts if they did), we do have the record of those who saw the effect of the resurrection, the risen Jesus. One of those who saw the risen Jesus was John, the author of the fourth Gospel. You say that the resurrection morning accounts were not recorded by eyewitnesses, which means that you either don't believe that John wrote the Gospel bearing his name or that he was not an eyewitness to the events of that morning. May I know what evidence led you to that conclusion?

[LNC]

I've come to think LNC is sincere in their concern about 'our souls' and all that; I've gotten angry when LNC is condescending to some of the members here, treating them like reactionary idiots who had never researched any of this for themselves. I do sort of wish I hadn't been as harsh as I was but I also don't think it was undeserved - on a forum as impersonal I lose track of the fact that I am talking to people. I think LNC would do better if he/she was less haughty with their presentations.

 

Sorry if I come across as haughty, it is not my intention. I am but a sinner and if I have offended, I apologize. I do take these topics seriously and am not trying to imply that any of you are unlearned or not thoughtful. In fact, I find most of you to be quite thoughtful and challenging. If I didn't think that you took these issues seriously, I would consider it a waste of both of our times to engage in this conversation. The fact that we come from different perspectives on many of these issues shouldn't lead us to anger, but to seeking and striving toward truth. I know that many of you, in fact most of you tell me when you think I am wrong and I take that without becoming upset at you. I hope that all of you will extend me the same courtesy focus on the issues rather than spending time attacking me as a person. I don't say that because I can't handle it, if I couldn't, I would have bailed on this conversation. I only say it as it diverts us from discussing the issues at hand.

 

I have tended to skip over the personal attacks (for the most part) that don't also bring up an issue. I will also say that if you all think that I am a troll and want me to leave, just say so and I will move on. I will understand.

[LNC]

First of all, insulting me is not a particularly Christian way to answer my post.

 

Secondly, you are flat-out wrong. Your supposed "facts" are from psuedoscience, a.k.a. Creation Science. I read all that stuff years ago, and continued to read more in order to verify what I was told by Christians. The truth? There is no "fine tuning," and yes, it can be explained by chance alone.

 

I suggest you take a class in astrophysics, or just read "A Brief History of Time."

 

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently.

 

I don't refer to Creation Science when I make these points. If you will read back on my post, I referred to physicists and cosmologists who are not even theists as far as I know. Look up the work of Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, Hawking, Davies, and others and you will find that they all generally agree that the universe had a beginning (in fact, had to have a beginning).

 

I have read Hawking. Can you tell me what in his view would constitute your conclusion that the universe is past eternal? I don't find that he comes to that conclusion in his book or in any of his other writing, especially his work since he wrote A Brief History of Time. If you know something different, please point me to that work.

 

Again, insults are not helpful. And I have not misused Occam's Razor at all. The simplest explanation is that matter always was. Positing a "god" who created matter and then declaring that this "god" always was merely removes the explanation by one step, and introduces the possibility of an infinite regression. Occam's Razor would not allow for such a convoluted explanation when a simpler one will do.

 

That was not an insult, that was a statement of fact. You clearly misrepresented Occam's Razor as I pointed out in my post. Occam's Razor is not accurately represented by your post. Please go look it up or post any philosopher who would give your definition as an accurate representation. The simplest explanation may lack explanatory scope and explanatory power and therefore be invalid. So, you are clearly wrong in your assertion. Could you explain how matter could have existed for eternity past and yet the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics still be valid? Could you also explain how the universe could be past eternal and yet we have crossed an eternal span of time to arrive at today? Sorry, your explanation is cut by Occam's Razor.

 

Wrong on both counts. Next?

 

Sorry, that is not an answer. That is an empty assertion.

 

Quantum uncertainty would make for an interesting framework for what we call free will. The universe is not so mechanistic as you seem to believe it to be.

 

No, quantum uncertainty would not work here as we would not have a working understanding of reason in a world grounded in uncertainty. Besides, we don't even yet understand whether quantum uncertainty is an epistemological or an ontological problem. So, it is too soon to begin building any explanations from this.

 

Logic.

 

Logic is a word, not an answer. Could you be a little more detailed in your explanations. I don't find using one word answers to be answers at all.

 

All ethics are situational. Even Christian ethics are situational.

 

Example: it is wrong to lie. But Corrie ten Boom lied to save the lives of Jews from the Nazis. The situation changed the ethical rule.

 

How do you judge whether something is detrimental to species survival? Logic and reason. Study basic evolutionary theiry, it's not so difficult to understand.

 

No, Christian ethics are not situational. Christians may apply them as such, but the underlying principles are not based upon situational application. What you seem to be saying is that morality is relative, is that what you believe?

 

I don't play absurd "what if?" games. What if Thor appeared in your bedroom and told you that Jesus was a fraud, and you had to obey Thor instead? See how absurd it is to pose those kinds of questions?

 

Part 2 will follow.

 

But, you just told me that ethics were situational which is the ultimate in "what if" scenarios. I don't understand why you refuse to engage in this what if scenario.

[Guest Davka]

The 'Easter morning' accounts in 'the gospels' are NOT eyewitness accounts but hearsay, and these hearsay accounts speak ONLY of the discovery of an empty tomb - NOBODY in the 'gopsels' witnesses any 'resurrection.'

 

It is true that there is no record of anyone having witnessed the actual resurrection; however, it is recorded that many saw the risen Jesus.

"recorded"?

 

Not really. Recording would imply a first-person historical narrative. We don't have that. We have third- and fourth-hand accounts, written decades after the events they purport to describe. It would be better to say that it is "claimed" that many saw the risen Christ.

 

What's more, that claim says that a crowd of around 500 saw Jesus physically ascend into the sky. Yet this claim is not repeated anywhere outside of the Gospels - and neither is another astonishing claim of an even witnessed by hundreds of people, the claim that when Jesus dies on the cross there were tombs opening all over Jerusalem and the dead walking in the streets.

 

The complete lack of extra-Biblical corroboration for these astonishing events is unfathomable. Unless, of course, they did not actually take place.

 

So, even though no one may have witnessed the actual event (and we don't know that no one did, we just don't have a record of those accounts if they did), we do have the record of those who saw the effect of the resurrection, the risen Jesus.

 

Why should you believe this supposed "record" any more than the Book of Mormon? Both have the exact same degree of verifiability.

 

 

One of those who saw the risen Jesus was John, the author of the fourth Gospel.

 

No, one of those who claimed to have seen the risen Christ was the author of the fourth Gospel, a man who claimed to be John. Since the earliest fragments we have of the Gospel of John were written down around a hundred years after the disciple named John was dead, it hardly constitutes a compelling proof.

 

Again: there is NO PROOF that anything written in any of the Gospels actually took place. Events of that scope and magnitude would surely have been spoken of--and written about--throughout the Roman Empire, yet they were not. Huh.

[LNC]

Part 2 Apparently you don't understand what is meant by "the appearance of design." The reason the use the word "appearance" is specifically to underscore the fact that it was not designed.

 

Remember the puddle analogy? How it fits the hole perfectly, so perfectly that the hole must have been designed for that specific puddle? That's similar to the appearance of design: life as we know it fits the universe perfectly. That doesn't mean that the universe was designed for life, it means that this kind of life was the most optimal to fill the niche in this kind of universe. For all we know, there are an infinite number of possible universes which could each support an infinite number of "perfectly fitting" forms of life.

 

Now, it is you who appears to insult. Yes, I do understand what the word "appearance" means, in this case it means that the universe looks like it was designed. Saying that it is to underscore that it was not designed is additional conjecture but not a definitional part of the word appearance. If I look outside and it appears that the sun is shining, even though I cannot see the sun directly, do I mean that it really is not shining? That seems illogical.

 

Your puddle analogy is also unrealistic. I don't know of anyone who would say that a puddle fits the hole perfectly therefore the hole must have been designed for the puddle. However, I don't read scientists who say that the universe is fine-tuned to permit intelligent life (read Paul Davies) and they also say that it could not have happened by chance and that there is no physics that would deem it to be as a result of necessity. To posit an infinite number of universe puts you into the realm of metaphysics and out of the realm of science. So, we are now arguing from the same ground, although there is no solid evidence for multiple universes either.

 

SI imagine that I've read far more than you have on the subject, since you seem to be stuck where I was about 10 years ago. Keep reading. And read some non-Christian sources, along with some books refuting the Christian claims.

 

Who have you read who has given evidence that the universe is not finely tuned as you assert? Maybe you could give me some suggestions of books that have led you to your conclusions.

 

I'd love to see a single post regarding this "evidence." Since I've only been here for 2 months, I haven't read all your past arguments. Please indulge me by providing a single piece of extra-Biblical evidence for the resurrection. All I've ever seen are references to what the early Christians believed. If you know of another source, please enlighten me.

 

You apparently have not read through all of my posts on the thread involving Bart Ehrman, go there and read through my posts.

 

That statement makes no sense. Of course skeptics dismiss the NT as a historically accurate document. If they did not, they wouldn't be skeptics.

 

Again, go read my posts on the Ehrman thread as I have posted the evidence there.

 

Again, I am convinced by all your arguments that I am the better-read of the two of us. I sincerely doubt that you can provide a single argument which I have not seen before - and, in all likelihood, believed.

 

Until I kept reading, that is. And broadened my scope beyond those who preach to the choir.

 

You may be better read, I don't know. I cannot tell from your replies here as you have not referenced anyone other than Hawking, and I believe you have not represented his position accurately in that case. Maybe, as I suggested earlier, you could point me to some of the authors and works that have led you to your conclusions. I would be happy to read them.

[Guest Davka]

Look up the work of Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, Hawking, Davies, and others and you will find that they all generally agree that the universe had a beginning (in fact, had to have a beginning).

 

Read them again. And again. And take a class on astrophysics.

 

What they say is that the universe as we know it had to have a beginning. In fact, they say that TIME as we know it had to have a beginning. That is not the same as saying that it came from nothing. Nowhere do any physicists support an "ex nihilo" creation.

 

I have read Hawking. Can you tell me what in his view would constitute your conclusion that the universe is past eternal?

 

I am not saying that the universe is "past eternal." That implies a completely different conceptualization of time. Time as we know it began with the Big Bang. But according to Hawking, "before" the Big Bang there was something. We simply do not know what that something was.

 

Occam's Razor is not accurately represented by your post. Please go look it up or post any philosopher who would give your definition as an accurate representation. The simplest explanation may lack explanatory scope and explanatory power and therefore be invalid.

 

Sure it might. But in this case, it doesn't. You just can't see that because you're too attached to your god-centric viewpoint.

 

Could you also explain how the universe could be past eternal and yet we have crossed an eternal span of time to arrive at today?

 

This reads like an oxymoron. I have no idea what you are trying to ask.

 

No, quantum uncertainty would not work here as we would not have a working understanding of reason in a world grounded in uncertainty.

 

Actually, the world we live in is grounded in uncertainty. We pretend otherwise for the sake of sanity. But in reality, there is nothing we can be certain of other than our own individual existence.

 

No, Christian ethics are not situational. Christians may apply them as such, but the underlying principles are not based upon situational application.

 

I challenge you to give me a single example of such an underlying principle which is not treated situationally in the Bible itself.

[Guest Davka]

Yes, I do understand what the word "appearance" means, in this case it means that the universe looks like it was designed. Saying that it is to underscore that it was not designed is additional conjecture but not a definitional part of the word appearance.

 

Let me rephrase that: You do not appear to understand what the phrase "appearance of design" means as it is used by physicists.

 

Your above statement reinforces that perception.

To posit an infinite number of universe puts you into the realm of metaphysics and out of the realm of science.

 

LOL- and you claim to have read a lot of physics? Do you know what a "brane" is?

 

You apparently have not read through all of my posts on the thread involving Bart Ehrman, go there and read through my posts.

 

I'm not going to chase through everything you've written. If you've made what you consider to be relevant points, at least have the courtesy to link to them instead of simply claiming they exist and asking me to slog though pages and pages of writing.

[Guest Davka]

It just occurred to me, LNC - you are demanding a scientific basis for the assertion that the Universe has always existed in some form or another, yet you cannot even begin to come up with a scientific basis for the assertion that god exists, let alone that he has always existed.

 

If you take these statements alone, without demanding "proof" for either one, which is the simplest and most powerful explanation?

 

- The Universe has always existed.

 

- The Universe requires a creator. The creator has always existed.

 

Do you see the problem? The second statement merely introduces an unprovable being into the mix. We know the universe exists. We do not know that god exists, or that if such a being did exist, he would not in turn require a creator by the same logic. In which case it's "turtles all the way down."

 

Your attempt to sidetrack the conversation into a scientific pissing match avoids the central fallacy of your position: you have not demonstrated that it is a simpler or more powerful explanation to posit the existence of an invisible, unprovable being than to simply observe that existence - exists.