Sermon On Fine Tune Argument

[Guest Valk0010]

For what was accepted as miracles in the ancient world would have been a trip to the nuthouse and mental illness and legend if it happened today.

 

That is simply a chronological bias. You assume that people back then were more naive or dumber than people today. Quite the opposite may be the case, however, people back then were able to do greater feats with less technology than we have today. When we consider great thinkers, we often think of people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancients. These people didn't have the Internet to do research, they did it in their heads. If Socrates wasn't a skeptic, then I'm not sure who is. No, it is not true that because people lived a long time ago they were naive, it is actually that kind of thinking that is naive and uninformed..

 

LNC

Well I guess every miracle claim every attested to in ancient history has been proven then. Your being obtuse. Miracle claims were common place in that era, and supposedly miraclous events where common place. Shamanism if that is the proper term was a commonly excepted thing back then and even in some parts of the world now. Look at how many ancient texts have miracles. Look at how many supposed miracles even go on today. Call it chronological bias if you want, its consistency though, you lack.

 

And sure you can be smart but still be superstitious and believe in batshit stuff.

 

As as far as I can remeber, Socrates was in essence a deist even though the term wasn't around then, nothing I can remembered about the "primal mover" said miracle working god.

 

Also not everyone was socrates or a great thinker. You can be a genius and still devotedly religious.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Who says that all the gospels are hearsay? John was an eyewitness. Mark is likely based on Peter's account as he was a travelling companion of Peter, Matthew was an apostle and therefore and eyewitness, and Luke was a historian and based his account on what he learned from others. So, in essence, Luke's would be the only account that would be based on other's recollections. There is early attestation that Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and that Mark was likely based upon Peter's account. We also have information included in Peter's other epistles. So, you are wrong about a single source as there are at least two direct eyewitnesses and two that would have second hand attestation. I'm not sure where you derive your information, but you might want to check more sources.

 

LNC

John's gospel does not claim to be written by John himself. It only says it was written by the beloved disciple but never identifies who he is. Matthew and Mark never say who they are either and the belief that they were written by apostles and friends of the apostles was a tradition made up later by the church fathers but isn't stated in the gospels themselves. And you yourself state that Luke wasn't an eyewitness and got his account from other people.

And why would Matthew, who is supposedly a eyewitness, rely on Mark. I am not sure what LNC's views are on Q and things like that, but I would say, if what created the idea of Q is correct in that there is large similarities between matthew and mark. I would say that is good reason to doubt the Matthew being a eyewitness.

[LivingLife]

Dude

 

FYI as has been pointed out, the names assigned to the grosspills were not indicative of their authorship. These disciples were lowly folk and likely illiterate.

 

The John of Patmos, John of the Epistles and John the evangelist are three different scribes. The original Greek styles differ greatly and John grosspill was written after the book of the apocalypse aka revelation.

 

The mere fact that he, John grosspill comes over with a lovey dovey message after the doom 'n gloom of revelation should tell you something.

 

Just a few irritating facts your church nor your apologetic sites will tell you. The dating of the grosspills all are many years after the alleged death of jesus. If you really do some proper research, you will find this information. Furthermore, there were many grosspills written and the apocalypse of Peter IIRC the name, was really a total 180 in line with the little we know of him in the grosspills and acts.

 

Of course, you are going to have to venture outside your comfort paradigms to glean off this knowledge.

 

I no longer have the facts at my fingertips as I have decided to try and deconvert a believer is an utter waste of time.

 

These studies in textual criticism was not the prime reason for my deconversion but it did close the door of inerrancy. Once you discover just how the texts were fiddled by the early "fathers", nothing you read can be taken at face value anymore. Even the assurance that the copying of manuscripts was carefully done is a load of BS. There is a shitload of evidence to show that this is NOT the case. If all scripture were gawd inspired and good for teaching etc, why did the Nicene concil toss so many scrips out? Why did revelation only make it into the buybull after being in then out and then in again?

 

The shepherd of harmanus (sp?) was in place of revelation for awhile, his rendition is even worse than revelation like the apocalypse of Peter.

 

Thankfully not all the manuscripts were destroyed so with that evidence and learned scholars of our day, it is easy to see this whole xianity was one huge man-made invention.

 

Saying trust the bible is akin to saying trust the government. Back in the 400CE something, the Papacy and Emperor were in bed with each other, the Papacy actually ruled for a fucking long time via proxy through the aristocracy of the day.

 

If you take the typical apologetic of the RCC are an abomination and misconstrued the wurd of teh lard, then you lot should make no frigging claim to the early church fathers. Your historty should start with the reformation and FYI, we do not see any tangible difference between the traditional orthodox churches and the modern protestant cum evangelical. Even if you take the time to study the doctrines of Calvin and his Protégé, Armenius, you find discrepancies on a huge scale. Proving that making-shit-up-as-you-go-along has been around for a sizeable amount of time already.

 

Lastly, if gawd's wurd is inerrant, why are folk still creating new translations today? The KJV has over 20000 known errors in translation - that is why. Your simple Lucifer and the idea he is satan which is also the serpent and the dragon is a fictitious account and is only tied together in an alleged vision of John of Patmos. WTF would jeebus give him a vision of stuff that had already transpired? Did he perhaps forget to let his disciples in on this secret when he was alive?

 

Furthermore, the stars that fell from heaven in revelation were NOT rebelling angels. A simple reference to a decent concordance will show this to have another meaning. If angels could rebel once, why did gawd fuck up with them giving them "free-will" like he did with humans? What prevents angels from rebelling again? Is there now order in heaven? WTF was gawd when this whole rebellion was going down? Was he asleep at the wheel? Didn't he see it coming? Couldn't he have stopped it in its tracks? Surely and omni fucking everything gawd is capable of achieving this while simply taking a crap. I mean, really, if he could not keep his own fucking house in order, what qualifies him to try and sort out our houses? This OFE gawd seems to be pretty incompetent seeing that not only can mortal man override his will but his closest allies the angels too.

 

Maybe your god is tied up with an Nintendo or X-box game that is keeping him away from his duties of being an all loving father protecting and caring for his creation. Next time you "talk to him" suggest he get a facebook page, lets see just how many fans he will get eh? Should be a no brainer for him, man he could even get a cell phone so we can call him direct?

 

Don't bother answering unless you can bring something new to the table, I already know all the pat answers.

[LNC]

Look at posts 179 and 180 lnc, some of the questions of 183 you brought up are addressed there to my satisfaction, and it seems you didn't read that far. Bodily right, does paul say appeared or appeared bodily. If it just says appeared, then what appearances. I think its wrong to make that assumption it was bodily, in 1 Corinthians. For the 100's time i am saying your assuming innerrancy to say just because the gospels say it was bodily that paul believed it was bodily. You have to provide some evidence to say paul without explicitly saying meant bodily for every single appearance he talks about. I know you never said anything about a wizard but it isn't a red herring, its rhetoric describing a point. Your saying the natural is unlikely yet you say god did it, god being the wizard.

 

Paul makes it clear that he had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) using the Greek word heoraka. N.T. Wright says of the word "heoraka, 'I have seen', is a normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective 'vision' or a private revelation; part of the point of it, as Newman stresses, is that it was a real seeing, not a 'vision' such as anyone in the church might have." Wright goes on to argue that the proximity of 1 Cor. 15 to this passage would indicate that Paul implies the same kind of seeing of Jesus here as in chapter 9. On top of that, Paul speaks of the public event of more than 500 people seeing Jesus at the same time, with witnesses still available to have their testimony and experience examined. Wright concludes: "we have said enough to round off our treatment of Paul with the clear understanding that he believed that he had seen the risen Jesus in person, and that his understanding of who this Jesus was included the firm belief that he possessed a transformed but still physical body. Attempts to undermine this conclusion by appeal to 'what really happened' at Paul's conversion, on the basis either of Acts or other passages in Paul, carry no conviction." (The Resurrection of the Son of God, chapter 8) N.T. Wright is one of the foremost respected historians on the resurrection.

 

You cannot assume that I assume inerrancy, you have to give evidence of this, which you cannot, because I do not in regard to this discussion. That is not how historical analysis is done. You can continue to make this assertion, but it will not become true with the repeated pleas on your part. In fact, I haven't appealed to the gospels for the bodily resurrection, I have given an earlier writing, 1 Corinthians as my evidence. In doing so, I have not appealed to inerrancy either. I think you are somewhat confused about the argument I am making. To appeal to a historical account is not to appeal to the inerrancy of that account. However, if you believe it to be an inaccurate record of history, the burden is on you to make that case.

 

Here is how Wikipedia defines a red herring: "Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance."

 

I have highlighted the significant portions that point out that what you are doing, by your own admission, is the use of a rhetorical tactic to shift the argument away from the main point. The use of the term Wizard is a red herring by definition.

 

If I am going to have such a hard time getting across to you what I want to say, i don't want to beat my head against the wall trying to have this discussion.

 

And just a nickpick point. Who says a non bodily jesus couldn't have risen? After all we don't know exactly what the resurrected body looks like, this is considering of course things like the seed plant arguement that paul made. What evidence do you have to say, that paul meant or believed one thing, and then the gospels believed the same, afterall that part of corithans is dated to the 50's. Early markian texts, have a very undetailed documentation of the resurrected jesus worse yet written in the 70's. Who says doctrine couldn't have changed. I know this will wash over you like water, but its good questions nonetheless.

 

First, you would have to establish that these people even had a category for a non-corporeal resurrection. You won't be able to do that since they did not. Second, a non-corporeal resurrection does not explain the empty tomb. The body should still have been there. Why roll away the tomb if the body was still there? Third, it doesn't explain Jesus' appearance to Thomas where he told Thomas to put his fingers in the nail holes and his hand in his side. What would the point be if Jesus was non-corporeal? Paul is arguing for a bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, he wasn't arguing for a non-corporeal resurrection. I will agree that the earliest manuscripts of Mark end abruptly; however, other writings, like 1 Cor. predate Mark's account. If you believe that doctrine changed, the burden of proving that would be on you. We have plenty of accounts that seem to match up doctrinally and plenty of manuscript support that we know with high degree of accuracy what was in the originals.

 

My evidence for cognitive dissonce, simple, its based in how I don't believe the disciples believed originally in christ being divine. Look at how jesus says god is greater then him, or how he said the world was going to come to end in the disciples lifetimes, even things like leave the dead for the dead, make more sense if jesus was originally attempting to be a prophet for the quickly coming end of the age. That is some reasons for that claim. And with that, I don't think it was expected for him to die, hence to dissonance.

 

Jesus also says that he and the Father are one (in essence) (John 10:30). Jesus also gives plenty of indication that he was divine which occassioned the Jews to pick up stones in attempts to stone him for blasphemy only to later crucify him on the same charge. They claimed that he made himself equal with God (John 5:18) and he did make that claim repeatedly (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:5-11; John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5 and elsewhere). Did Jesus claim that the world was going to come to an end in the disciples lifetime? Where? It seems rather that he said that no one knows when that time would come but the Father (Mark 13:32-37). When you say it wasn't expected for him to die, by whom? Jesus foretold his own death many times. Did the disciples completely understand it? Probably not, but Jesus certainly did (Mark 8:31-9:1)

 

Hallucination, I doubt, that the disciples even saw a bodily jesus as depicted in the gospels. Those gospels stories contradict is one reason I doubt there more then embellishment. Paul for example never says anything about how he is difference then the apostles even in knowing jesus, outside of things like untimely born which can be taken to mean the timing of pauls conversion.

 

Mythology, Jesus died in 30 ad, mark was written at 70, even if the truth was somehow secured by mnemonics or memory enhancement that is no security especially considering the credulity of the time, and also how even know we react to claims of the paranormal of any sort and how beliefs can change and develop.

 

I would say, with that and more we get a picture of what is understood.

 

A thing I would actually prefer to debate in regards to this(because I would be on a better footing debating a person that has a degree is apologetics from what I have been told and), because its actually more important, is miracles even possible or are they so unlikely there not even worth consideration. Because if that is true, any search of the historical jesus or divine jesus is moot. No miracles no resurrection.

 

Even if the Gospels did contradict each other (which I don't believe they do), it still wouldn't be evidence that the disciples didn't see the bodily resurrected Jesus. The Gospel accounts have been harmonized. Each is told from a different person and perspective and none is exhaustive, which is why the accounts have to be harmonized together, but that has been done long ago. Yet, you speak of the Gospels and then speak of Paul, whereas Paul is not involved with the Gospel accounts nor is he within them. Paul is the only one who didn't see Jesus during his lifetime, which is one major difference. Second, Paul was a persecutor of the church when he encountered the risen Jesus. As for the timing, it was probably near the time that James and Jude became believers as they became believers after the resurrection, like Paul. But still, you have given no evidence to support a hallucination hypothesis.

 

The account in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is a creed that has been traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection by historians and that is the message of the resurrection encapsulated in a short couple of sentences. That time frame would be way too short for embellishment to factor in. On top of that we have multiple attestation and that also makes the story more credible as it is difficult to have such a consistent set of accounts from disparate witnesses so closely align if the stories are not veridical. Now, you keep making these allusions that people of that time were less credible and more gullible, but you have not established that fact, you have merely asserted it, so that cannot be taken as evidence in this case.

 

If you would like to make a case as to why miracles are not possible, I would be happy to discuss that with you. I think that Hume's argument in that regard has been thoroughly discredited, so that wouldn't be a good place for you to start. I would agree with you that if miracles are impossible, so is the resurrection, but then, I see no reason to believe that miracles are impossible. I believe that I have witnessed miracles and have heard plenty of other credible testimony to others, so, I believe I have good reason to believe they are not only possible, but have actually occurred and continue to occur.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

Maybe innerrancy is the wrong word. When I say that I am trying to say that, its me trying to say reading the gospel accounts into paul.

 

I must confess I never read hume, outside of the famous quote of his. So I don't know the exact nature of the arguement. Though I agree with the principal.

 

But, while you would accuse me of chronological bias. My evidence for believing that miracles are so unlikely if there even possible is as such.

 

The period of the time. By this I am not saying anything more, then fact, mysticism in its various forms like healing, omen, prophecy and exorcism, and things of that sort where widely expected even in pagan religions. So how can one say things like, ohh the gospels are a real deal without at least paying some heed to other accounts in history that reference supernatural happens. That is where my mentioning of the book of mormon comes into play, even if we were to have signed witnesses for the gospels, that doesn't ensure the accuracy of the story. So say, someone says, to someone else, ohh this guy around the block here, cured a blind person(or did some sort of miracle) and due to the acceptance of things like that, the bar is a bit lower in the skepticism department and people believe it. That is what I mean by people of the time, the bar was lower on the supernatural, for most people anyway. There of course where exceptions. Look at the work of shaman's in recent memory if you want to see how powerful "miracle workers" can be. Do you want me to provide quotes in this area, I would be happy to.

 

We don't normally except testimony even from reliable people of crazy things, think things like UFO's or Marian apparitions as a example. This is when we can even ask people what they saw.

 

One of the problems I have with apologetics(I am not convinced they use the same standards as actual historians, when considering things like Habermas miminal fact method is a appeal to authority and consensus(70 percent of scholars accept there was a empty tomb, so what,what is there evidence for it, not there consensus for it. Consensus isn't evidence) is that there standard of evidence proves more then what they like.

 

Outside of the life changing experience part, I would swear on any holy text I once saw a ghost. By apologetic style reasoning I just proved ghosts exist. I don't have a solid explanation for why I saw the ghost that doesn't appeal to the supernatural, so therefore ghosts exist. Unless I am missing something that is the type of reasoning most apologists use.

 

I agree with you, that the historian's job is not normally to say something is miraculous. In fact I would say its beyond the nature of history to even prove a miracle, especially in the face of not exactly certainty.

[Guest Valk0010]

And btw the way, what is your definition of corporeal, what in your theology without appealing to the gospels states what the resurrected body looked like. Could have looked like casper the friendly ghost for all we know, unless we have proof the gospels are reliable historical accounts(I am not convinced of that) and even if that is the case, how can we assume agreement between the rest of the apostles and paul?

 

I am familiar with the name NT Wright but unfortunately I haven't had a chance to really become incredibly familiar with his views. Thanks for the greek word thing, I will have to look that up. I operated under the impression the word was ophthe. I am open minded, I am not exactly sure I am as clear as I want to be, and that is my fault alone.

 

You probably think of this as dealing with the transfiguration. I am not sure I agree with that assessment.

 

Mark 9:1-9 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

Mark 9

 

1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

That is from the biblegateway site.

[Neon Genesis]

Watch a Christian, John Shelby Spong, debunk the resurrection of Jesus: http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29642627

[Guest Valk0010]

About heoraka, why didn't paul only use it in 9:1 and not chapter 15 if understand the translations correctly?

[ShackledNoMore]

 

 

Jesus claimed to be God. So, no matter how much good he did, he was either lying, crazy, or speaking the truth. LNC

 

This is common among apologists. I think it comes out of one of those Lee Strobel books.

 

There is a fourth option, he was just a common priest who believed what he was saying and wasn't intentionally lying..........such as when he allegedly spoke of Noah and the flood in Matthew.

And there's a fifth option: Jesus never said it, but people at a later date put those words in his mouth.

Yes, that is a fallacy: a false dilemma. There's Sybaris' fourth option, Ouroboros' fifth option, and all these options from the "Was There a Historical Jesus" ex-c poll, which itself is NOT a comprehensive list:

 

• Yes, and He is the Lord God / Son of God consistent with the beliefs of most moderate and conservative xians.
  
• Yes. Traditional accounts have a bona fide historical basis, but have been exaggerated to some extent.
  
• Yes, he was a prophet or manifestation of some god or spiritual force outside the xian tradition (muslim, new age, or other).
  
• Yes, he was a good and moral man / teacher, but not a god.
  
• Yes, although he was not an outright fraud, he was not particularly moral.
  
• Yes, he suffered from insanity and was deluded into the belief that he was God.
  
• Yes, he was an ordinary con artist and liar who knew full well he was not any god and that he was running a scam.
  
• Yes, there was a basis in truth, but his miracles, resurrection, etc. were fabricated by his followers somewhere along the line.
  
• There was a historical Jesus. He was an ordinary man behind a mythology that warped and distorted him beyond all recognition.
  
• The jury's out on that one: there is not enough information to take a really good stab at the answer.
  
• No, not really, but he was an embellished composite of a number of self proclaimed god-men who claimed to be the messiah.
  
• No, a historical Jesus did not exist at all. He is a mythical figure.
  

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Paul makes it clear that he had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) using the Greek word heoraka. N.T. Wright says of the word "heoraka, 'I have seen', is a normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective 'vision' or a private revelation; part of the point of it, as Newman stresses, is that it was a real seeing, not a 'vision' such as anyone in the church might have."

Bible scholar John Shelby Spong argues in his book "Rescuing The Bible from Fundamentalism" that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection, not a physical resurrection. Spong points out that in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that Paul says

What I am saying, brothers and sisters,* is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable

If it's impossible for a physical body to enter the kingdom of heaven, how could Jesus be physically raised from the dead and be able to return to heaven?

 

Wright goes on to argue that the proximity of 1 Cor. 15 to this passage would indicate that Paul implies the same kind of seeing of Jesus here as in chapter 9. On top of that, Paul speaks of the public event of more than 500 people seeing Jesus at the same time, with witnesses still available to have their testimony and experience examined.

Paul also says that they all experienced the same kind of resurrection he did, which was that of a vision rather than a physical resurrection.

 

N.T. Wright is one of the foremost respected historians on the resurrection.

How can someone be a foremost respected historian on the resurrection? Isn't that like being a foremost respected UFOologist?

 

You cannot assume that I assume inerrancy, you have to give evidence of this, which you cannot, because I do not in regard to this discussion. That is not how historical analysis is done. You can continue to make this assertion, but it will not become true with the repeated pleas on your part. In fact, I haven't appealed to the gospels for the bodily resurrection, I have given an earlier writing, 1 Corinthians as my evidence. In doing so, I have not appealed to inerrancy either. I think you are somewhat confused about the argument I am making. To appeal to a historical account is not to appeal to the inerrancy of that account. However, if you believe it to be an inaccurate record of history, the burden is on you to make that case.

You're claiming that the bible is historically accurate because the bible says it is. That's assuming inerrancy using the logical fallacy of circular logic. Would you accept the Koran as being legitimate evidence for the divine inerrancy of Islam just because Muslims say it is?

 

 

 

 

 

First, you would have to establish that these people even had a category for a non-corporeal resurrection. You won't be able to do that since they did not. Second, a non-corporeal resurrection does not explain the empty tomb. The body should still have been there. Why roll away the tomb if the body was still there? Third, it doesn't explain Jesus' appearance to Thomas where he told Thomas to put his fingers in the nail holes and his hand in his side.

Prove that there was an empty tomb and that Thomas really did feel the nail holes with his fingers without using the bible.

 

What would the point be if Jesus was non-corporeal? Paul is arguing for a bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, he wasn't arguing for a non-corporeal resurrection. I will agree that the earliest manuscripts of Mark end abruptly; however, other writings, like 1 Cor. predate Mark's account. If you believe that doctrine changed, the burden of proving that would be on you. We have plenty of accounts that seem to match up doctrinally and plenty of manuscript support that we know with high degree of accuracy what was in the originals.

Show me anywhere in 1 Cor 15 where Paul mentions an empty tomb or Thomas feeling the nail holes of Jesus.

 

 

 

Even if the Gospels did contradict each other (which I don't believe they do), it still wouldn't be evidence that the disciples didn't see the bodily resurrected Jesus.

If you have four different accounts that claimed to have witnessed a UFO sighting and none of them agreed on any of their facts, would that still be proof that they saw a real UFO?

 

The Gospel accounts have been harmonized. Each is told from a different person and perspective and none is exhaustive, which is why the accounts have to be harmonized together, but that has been done long ago.

Please explain who it was then that Mary met at the tomb.

 

The account in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is a creed that has been traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection by historians and that is the message of the resurrection encapsulated in a short couple of sentences.

Please explain where it says in 1 Corinthians 15 that it takes place after 24 months of the resurrection. You have not presented any evidence of this whatsoever and just keep repeating the same argument and ignoring my question. Stop it.

[Guest Valk0010]

I am not sure Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection(I have seen good arguments for it), all I am trying to argue is that Paul didn't have any appearance by Jesus in his life that were like the gospels and apostles supposedly had. Of course corporeal and even bodily have many different possibilities not in the least a human body with flesh that Thomas could stick fingers in.

[Neon Genesis]

I think Paul's resurrection is a spiritual one, not a literal one. Paul says himself in 1 Cor 15 that it's impossible for the physical to enter heaven. He doesn't describe any physical details of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. He describes his resurrection experiences in terms of having visions, like one verse where he talks about being taken into the third heaven and he compares his resurrection experience to that of the other witnesses.

[centauri]

Paul makes it clear that he had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) using the Greek word heoraka. N.T. Wright says of the word "heoraka, 'I have seen', is a normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective 'vision' or a private revelation; part of the point of it, as Newman stresses, is that it was a real seeing, not a 'vision' such as anyone in the church might have."

It was a private revelation because Paul alone experienced it.

The term “real seeing” doesn’t satisfy the criteria for an appearance by Jesus in the flesh.

A vision is still a vision, whether someone deems it to be real or otherwise.

Jesus was to be seen returning the same way he left, which was bodily ascending into the clouds (Acts 1:9-11).

Jesus must remain in heaven until the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21).

Acts says nothing about Paul seeing a flesh and blood Jesus, but a flashing light.

In 2 Cor 12:1-4, Paul isn’t at all sure of what he was experiencing.

 

Wright goes on to argue that the proximity of 1 Cor. 15 to this passage would indicate that Paul implies the same kind of seeing of Jesus here as in chapter 9. On top of that, Paul speaks of the public event of more than 500 people seeing Jesus at the same time, with witnesses still available to have their testimony and experience examined.

If visions and light patterns are the equivalent of an actual bodily appearance, then Jesus appears to people on pieces of burnt toast and in window panes.

Paul still didn’t see Jesus in the flesh regardless of how “realistic” he thought his visions were.

The figure of 500 believers seeing Jesus at one time is undercut by the Book of Acts, which designates a church membership of about 120, which isn’t anywhere close to 500.

There is no internal or external confirmation for Paul’s claim.

Specifically, what witnesses were available and how were the Corinthians to examine them?

 

Wright concludes: "we have said enough to round off our treatment of Paul with the clear understanding that he believed that he had seen the risen Jesus in person, and that his understanding of who this Jesus was included the firm belief that he possessed a transformed but still physical body. Attempts to undermine this conclusion by appeal to 'what really happened' at Paul's conversion, on the basis either of Acts or other passages in Paul, carry no conviction." (The Resurrection of the Son of God, chapter 8) N.T. Wright is one of the foremost respected historians on the resurrection.

Wright conveniently assumes his conclusion, ignoring that Paul’s imaginings and musings are NOT the same as actually seeing Jesus in the flesh.

The conviction that Wright holds requires not only wishful thinking on the part of Paul, it contradicts scripture that indicates Jesus would not return in the flesh until the second coming.

It also ignores Paul’s own uncertainty on what he experienced.

Jesus specifically indicated that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide believers, and he does not plan to make repeated trips back and forth from heaven in a physical body.

 

Jesus also says that he and the Father are one (in essence) (John 10:30). Jesus also gives plenty of indication that he was divine which occassioned the Jews to pick up stones in attempts to stone him for blasphemy only to later crucify him on the same charge. They claimed that he made himself equal with God (John 5:18) and he did make that claim repeatedly (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:5-11; John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5 and elsewhere).

And Jesus claimed to have a God in John 20:17 and many other verses.

 

Did Jesus claim that the world was going to come to an end in the disciples lifetime? Where?

Jesus predicted that he would return to set up his kingdom before all of the disciples had died in Matt 16:27-28.

 

It seems rather that he said that no one knows when that time would come but the Father (Mark 13:32-37).

If Jesus didn’t know what the Father knew then he wasn’t equal to God, which undermines the claim that he was.

 

Even if the Gospels did contradict each other (which I don't believe they do), it still wouldn't be evidence that the disciples didn't see the bodily resurrected Jesus. The Gospel accounts have been harmonized. Each is told from a different person and perspective and none is exhaustive, which is why the accounts have to be harmonized together, but that has been done long ago.

The author of Luke says nothing about a reader needing to consult other gospels in order to “harmonize” history.

 

The account in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is a creed that has been traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection by historians and that is the message of the resurrection encapsulated in a short couple of sentences. That time frame would be way too short for embellishment to factor in.

Not true.

Embellishments can occur within days of an event.

See the embellishments of the exploits of Pfc Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and the escapes of Adolf Hitler and various henchmen to South America right after the fall of Berlin in 1945.

 

On top of that we have multiple attestation and that also makes the story more credible as it is difficult to have such a consistent set of accounts from disparate witnesses so closely align if the stories are not veridical.

Multiple attestation provided solely by cult members, who cannot agree on the details surrounding the event.

[LNC]

Sorry to butt in here, but your response didn't make sense to me. You have to explain it better and provide a bit more evidence to support your claim.

 

You're making the assumption that they didn't believe in the resurrection stories in the Old Testament or believed them according to your interpretation.

I believe that they held to the teachings of the OT that speak of a general resurrection at the end of time. This is the idea that Jesus also promoted, for example, when questioned about marriage in heaven (Matt. 22). The general resurrection at the end of time was assumed by the Sadducees (who didn't even hold to a resurrection) and by Jesus. Martha also speaks of this general resurrection in John 11 in regard to the death of her brother, Lazarus. This was in accordance with OT teaching. For example, Job 14 & 19 give us this idea. David as well gave a hint of this in 2 Sam. 12 when his child by Bathsheba died. There was also the belief that Enoch and Elijah, neither of whom died, would return. There are also references to life after death in various Psalms.

 

Are you saying that when Jesus was resurrected, they mysteriously knew that Jesus was resurrected for eternal and divine life (like Asclepius or Aristeas of Proconnesus) and not just a reanimation of their dead body.

 

What about Moses? Or Enoch (I think it was), who pleased God and was taken up before his time (at age of 300)? And wasn't Elijah taken up into the sky without dying?

 

I guess the Jews didn't believe their book literally, like Christians do today.

 

The Greeks had several myths about people being resurrected and receiving eternal life, and the Christians knew about these stories. Greek philosophy was known because we have the writings of Philo, for instance, or Jystin Marty making the argument “when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus.”

You are confusing Greek mythology with what the disciples experienced as a reality, Jesus risen from the dead. No, I don't believe they would have confused the two. You forget that Jesus was also able to instruct them and they also saw his ascension to heaven. He had a physically resurrected body that also had new dimensional capacity (he could be touched and eat food (Luke 24:39-43; John 20:24-28) but could also pass through locked doors and dematerialize before their eyes (Luke 24:31; John 20: 19-23)

 

Moses died while Enoch and Elijah were taken (not resurrected), so those would not be the same as Jesus' resurrection. Even the raising of Lazarus, the widow's son (1 Ki. 17), the Shunammite woman's son (2 Kgs. 4), or the man thrown in Elisha's tomb (2 Kgs. 13) would be different as they were revivifications, not the type of resurrection that Jesus experienced. They had the same type of body that they did when they died and they did die again later in their lives.

 

I don't think you have given any justification for concluding that the Jews didn't believe their book then as they did later.

 

You are assuming you know Martha's thoughts and beliefs.

No, I am simply reading what was recorded of her words in John's gospel.

Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

It seems pretty clear that she believed in a general resurrection in the last day, otherwise known as the end of time.

 

How the heck do you know? I'm quite certain that the myth is that they didn't die. Is there a Bible verse claiming they died? Didn't even Paul admit Enoch went to heaven without dying? (I have a vague memory he does, but I could be wrong.)

I think you may be confusing Elijah and Enoch with those people whom I was speaking of, those brought back to life by Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus, all of whom still had mortal bodies and therefore, would have died again. Nowhere do we have evidence that they had anything but the same bodies brought back to life. Those bodies would have been subject to the same aging process, disease and sickness, and therefore, would have expired at some point. However, as I mentioned earlier, Elijah and Enoch were taken by God and didn't die physical deaths on earth.

 

And how do you know that?

 

And how did they know the difference? And how did they not know what many others knew about the Greek myths, which a large number of people still believed in during that time.

 

If you want to focus on answering only one question, focus on Enoch. Tell me how he died or why the Jews didn't believe it to be a true story.

 

The same matter of deduction as I stated before, they were raised with mortal bodies, not immortal bodies, therefore, they would have died again. I see no reason to believe that people back then could not distinguish myth from reality any less so than we can today. If they saw a person walking before them alive after being crucified, I think they would be sharp enough to know that this was not a mythological figure, especially when he could eat, had a physical body that could be touched, where there was an empty grave where his dead body a few days earlier had resided, etc.

 

Regarding Enoch, again he didn't die and the Jews believed it to be a true story.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I think you have it backwards. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. To claim that a crucified Jewish man was raised from the dead on the third day is an extraordinary claim and it's your job to back it up with extraordinary evidence. It is logically impossible to prove a negative and we're not the ones making the assertive claim, you are, so it's your job to prove it. Even the bible says that Christians should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope they have. It doesn't say skeptics should always have a reason, it says Christians should.

The statement, "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" is actually a problematic claim that borders on being fallacious, if it isn't actually fallacious. Any claim requires suitable and adequate evidence to justify that particular claim. Can you tell me what the specific measurement is that reaches the level of "extraordinary"? No, because it is a subjective standard that, for the skeptic, will never reach the level of requirement. Therefore, the skeptic will never be satisfied with the degree of evidence provided.

 

What negative am I asking you to prove? Are you saying that you make no positive assertions about existence? For example, do you believe that existence is limited to the material world, or do you believe that there is existence beyond the material world? Do you believe that people are solely material beings without immaterial minds? You see, every worldview makes positive claims that require evidence, even yours.

 

Where in 1 Corinthians 15 does it ever say Paul wrote that letter 24 months after the resurrection of Jesus? I've read that entire chapter and I fail to see where that it is ever stated anywhere in that passage.

The creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 has been traced back to as early as within 24 months of the resurrection, Paul simply recorded that early creed in this account. You need to read the historians to know this information. That is how historical analysis is done, by looking at the writings and then looking at other sources, styles, genres, etc. to determine context and dating of the particular piece and the parts within.

 

It is believed that Paul would have received the Creed during his first trip to Jerusalem (about 36-37 A.D.) and the creed would have pre-dated that visit so it would place the creed between 33 and, at latest, 37 A.D., but more likely earlier between 33-35 A.D. You can look to the work of C.H. Dodd as he has done much work in this area.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

Hey question, how can we know the creed has been dated within 24 months, when there wasn't anything as far as I am aware written down by the apostles or anybody within 24 months of resurrection for comparison? And also how do we know what Paul received in his first Jerusalem trip. There is no documentation of it elsewhere, its just guess work that makes slaphappy apologists happy as far as I can tell. What comparisons can we make to it to date it earlier, if there is nothing written down. Not that it matters much to me anyway, how far its dated back to, if anything that can help a skeptics case, if presented correctly. But I would still like that question answered LNC?

 

Extraordinary evidence, miracles demand more evidence then the non miraclous, because of what is asserted by the definition of what a miracle is and what it does.

[Neon Genesis]

 

The statement, "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" is actually a problematic claim that borders on being fallacious, if it isn't actually fallacious. Any claim requires suitable and adequate evidence to justify that particular claim. Can you tell me what the specific measurement is that reaches the level of "extraordinary"? No, because it is a subjective standard that, for the skeptic, will never reach the level of requirement. Therefore, the skeptic will never be satisfied with the degree of evidence provided.

 

If somebody claimed they were abducted by aliens, would you believe their claim just because they claimed they were abducted or would you need more proof that confirms their story? Do you just go around buying into any supernatural claim someone makes just because they claim it's true or you demand evidence for it? And if the standard for extraordinary evidence is subjective, then you admit you have no objective evidence for your claims and you're just making it all up.

[Ouroboros]

LNC,

 

I get it know. Lazarus and the others were zombified, while Jesus was made into a ectoplasmic ghost. Makes sense.

 

And the disciples could tell the difference because Lazarus made grunting noise, while Jesus obviously spoke with a hollow voice and rattled the chains.

 

Got it.

[LNC]

Embellishment can occur only hours and days after an event.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are two examples of soldiers whose exploits were embellished very quickly.

In their cases the embellishments were created by official government agencies.

The legend of Hitler escaping Berlin in 1945 and fleeing to South America arose quickly as well.

Paul never saw the bodily resurrected Jesus but did see visions, and he claimed that he learned his information from no man but from the visions.

In any case, the creed isn't validated by sources outside the cult.

 

Maybe so, but that was easily detected and debunked. How? The eyewitnesses straightened out the misrepresented stories. In the case of the Bible, we are dealing with first or second hand eyewitnesses and multiple attestation rectifies any embellishment. You simply have to read the historians to find out which parts of the NT accounts they give the greatest weight to and it is those parts that have multiple and consistent attestation for a given event.

 

Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, he doesn't ever say that he saw a vision of Jesus. So, from where do you get the idea that he merely saw a vision? I've already quoted the historian, N.T. Wright on this issue and he says that Paul never claims it to be a mere vision of Jesus. Actually what Paul said in the verse you referenced is, "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:12) It makes no reference or even implies that it was a vision, it says he received it from Jesus Christ himself.

 

You have your historical analysis wrong. The passage doesn't have to be validated by any source outside of the original to be considered authentic. If that were the case we would have to throw out most works of antiquity as being inauthentic as most are not referenced by contemporary outside sources. The creed has been considered authentic by the vast majority of NT historians, so I will take their words over yours, thank you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Following neon's thinking, which I agree with. I am saying I am not convinced based off the evidence that the supernatural explanation is the right one. I still mull over my head what specifically is the right non supernatural explanation personally. I could write a book saying what actually happened, but that would be pointless. I am just simply not convinced it proves that supernatural things occurred.

 

About the Corinthians bit, the best I can gather, which is really just assumption on apologist parts. Well people say that paul got his information about things like the resurrection from the apostles themselves according to Galatians.

 

How specifically they date back the creed to 24 months I don't know know the specifics, never though it to matter, but the Galatians part I do know to be said by apologists.

 

Still waiting for you to address 179 and 180 lnc.

 

Why aren't you convinced? Do you have specific reasons? When you say that apologists make assumptions regarding 1 Cor., what specifically are those assumptions and how do you know that is all that is being done? Paul specifically says in Galatians that he didn't get his information from apostles, but rather, directly from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12), so I'm not sure where you are getting your information, it is clear in Galatians.

 

Historians look at a few things to determine this info about the creed. First, the language and meter of the section clearly delineates it as creedal. Second, looking at Paul's timeline in Galatians, he went to Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18), putting him in Jerusalem at 36-38 A.D. The creed would have predated that trip as it was believed to have already been established and disseminated. Paul goes back to Jerusalem 14 years later to confirm that he is still preaching the same gospel as the other apostles (Gal. 2:1) and was given the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9) indicating that he was. So, if Paul first went up in 36 (three years after the resurrection) and the creed predated that visit, then it places it within 24 months of the resurrection.

 

You have to watch where I am in my posting as I take them in order. I have now answered these posts, but by the time you posted this one, I hadn't gotten there yet. Maybe you can look at the date of your post and the date of the posts to which I have responded so that you can track my progress against the post to which you want me to respond. I'm trying not to skip posts unless they are simply rants and not real arguments and questions, the rants I pass by as not worth a response.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

Ahh thanks for clearing that up LNC.

 

Why I am not convinced, I have enumerated on several reasons why I don't buy into the resurrection thing.

 

If I could summerize it into a few sentences. Though I have brought up other reasons in this thread. Some are simply just hard for me to explain because I am not good at discussing this type of thing.

 

You would have to assume christianity is the most unique religion in the world and has the most unique people involved in it. Because while we cannot find exact similarities in other religions, but there are plenty components from other religions as far as mindset and even the psychology of it all. Basically its pyschology of religion,and even how it seems humans deal with the paranormal for one.

 

I am just simply not convinced by the arguements made, pro resurrection that I am aware off. All of them either violate above, or take to many assumptions for them to be worth a damn to me.

 

Problems with the bible in general, would mean, if other parts of the bible have problems, like say in regards to the problem of evil. You can't hold both the resurrection and the problem of evil to be valid without contradiction. I do think the problem of evil is valid, so therefore I can't believe in a resurrection, because if a christian god doesn't exist, then there can be no resurrection

 

I respond to your responses according to the new ones I see, so if you bring up a old one, fine by me.

[Guest Valk0010]

Ahh thanks for clearing that up LNC.

 

Why I am not convinced, I have enumerated on several reasons why I don't buy into the resurrection thing.

 

If I could summerize it into a few sentences. Though I have brought up other reasons in this thread. Some are simply just hard for me to explain because I am not good at discussing this type of thing.

 

You would have to assume christianity is the most unique religion in the world and has the most unique people involved in it. Because while we cannot find exact similarities in other religions, but there are plenty components from other religions as far as mindset and even the psychology of it all. Basically its pyschology of religion,and even how it seems humans deal with the paranormal for one.

 

I am just simply not convinced by the arguements made, pro resurrection that I am aware off. All of them either violate above, or take to many assumptions for them to be worth a damn to me.

 

Problems with the bible in general, would mean, if other parts of the bible have problems, like say in regards to the problem of evil. You can't hold both the resurrection and the problem of evil to be valid without contradiction. I do think the problem of evil is valid, so therefore I can't believe in a resurrection, because if a christian god doesn't exist, then there can be no resurrection

 

I respond to your responses according to the new ones I see, so if you bring up a old one, fine by me.

You said pretty much what I wanted to say about the Galatians thing, which i garbled up.

[centauri]

Embellishment can occur only hours and days after an event.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are two examples of soldiers whose exploits were embellished very quickly.

In their cases the embellishments were created by official government agencies.

The legend of Hitler escaping Berlin in 1945 and fleeing to South America arose quickly as well.

Paul never saw the bodily resurrected Jesus but did see visions, and he claimed that he learned his information from no man but from the visions.

In any case, the creed isn't validated by sources outside the cult.

 

Maybe so, but that was easily detected and debunked. How?

No, the stories about Hitler and his henchmen circulated for years and got new life when Eichmann was arrested in South America in 1960.

The Lynch embellishment was detected because she denied the story.

The Tillman embellishment is still being debated.

The embellishments about Iraq by Colin Powell at the U.N. stood as credible for several years and to this day, advocates of the WMD theory insist that the weapons were sent to Syria just prior to the invasion.

 

The eyewitnesses straightened out the misrepresented stories. In the case of the Bible, we are dealing with first or second hand eyewitnesses and multiple attestation rectifies any embellishment.

Who exactly are these eyewitnesses that straightened out false stories?

The multiple attestation in the Bible comes from primarily unknown authors, is inconsistent, and does not rectify the issue of embellishment.

Who was the eyewitness that reported the mass resurrection of the dead?

 

You simply have to read the historians to find out which parts of the NT accounts they give the greatest weight to and it is those parts that have multiple and consistent attestation for a given event.

Which historians were living at that time and validate the NT tales about the resurrection?

The attestation in the NT is inconsistent, differing on key elements and details of the so-called “history”.

 

Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, he doesn't ever say that he saw a vision of Jesus. So, from where do you get the idea that he merely saw a vision?

The Bible tells me so.

Paul claims to have had trances, visions and personal revelations.

2 Cor 12, Acts 22:17-18, Eph 3:3, and several other passages verify this.

 

I've already quoted the historian, N.T. Wright on this issue and he says that Paul never claims it to be a mere vision of Jesus.

So, N.T. Wright thinks a flashing light is the equivalent of an actual resurrected body?

Paul didn’t even know what the light was until he asked and then a voice told him it was Jesus.

Of course Paul wants his light beams to be just as good as actually seeing the resurrected Jesus, but there is no way to validate that what he saw was Jesus, there were no witnesses that can verify the light beam was Jesus, nor is there any indication that it was Jesus in the flesh.

The Bible cross references 1 Cor 9:1, where Paul claims to have seen Jesus to Acts, and there is nothing in Acts that indicates Paul saw the bodily resurrected Jesus.

In fact, it undermines such a notion.

Jesus was to be seen returning the same way he left, which was bodily ascending into the clouds (Acts 1:9-11).

Jesus must remain in heaven until the restoration of all things. (Acts 3:21).

Acts says nothing about Paul seeing a flesh and blood Jesus, but only a flashing light.

In 2 Cor 12:1-4, Paul isn’t at all sure of what he was experiencing.

 

Actually what Paul said in the verse you referenced is, "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:12) It makes no reference or even implies that it was a vision, it says he received it from Jesus Christ himself.

Paul had no multiple attestation for his claims, his personal revelations have no witnesses, and Paul speaks of his visions in 2 Cor 12, which the Bible titles “Paul’s vision and his thorn”.

Paul claimed to have visions.

Now, if Paul imagines his visions are bona-fide flesh and blood contact with “Jesus” then he’s got the burden of proof to validate such a claim.

In no case can his mere claims be set up as actual historical appearances of the bodily resurrected Jesus.

Paul is in the same class with new age gurus that claim to channel Jesus(Sananda), have personal revelations from him, and have Jesus appear to them.

 

You have your historical analysis wrong. The passage doesn't have to be validated by any source outside of the original to be considered authentic.

And you have the talking point wrong.

The passage may indeed have been written by some ancient religious zealot call “Paul”, but its content does not represent historical fact.

Paul’s personal revelations have no direct validation other than itself, and that’s a form of circular logic.

 

If that were the case we would have to throw out most works of antiquity as being inauthentic as most are not referenced by contemporary outside sources. The creed has been considered authentic by the vast majority of NT historians, so I will take their words over yours, thank you.

Preachers and apologists repeatedly try to use this passage as convincing proof for the resurrection.

It’s not at all convincing and represents a disservice for it to be advertised as such.

They try to extrapolate a creed or doctrine into a historical fact via wishful thinking.

The creed probably was authentic but that does not mean the creed itself was true.

There is very little to validate the contents of the creed as being factual history, apologists only assert that it is, based on the wishful thinking of Christian operatives and inconsistent cult writings that are not confirmed by any contemporary non-cult source.

 

Colin Powell preached a creed at the U.N. based on the revelations of a source called “Curveball”.

Both the creed and “Curveball” existed, but the content of the creed was a pack of lies.

[BrotherJosh]

LNC - I encourage you to watch this video posted on the main blog - http://new.exchristian.net/2011/02/fine-tuned-universe-argument-debunked.html

 

Of course, I am sure they are too speculative... apart from that, I am no longer interested in debating with you, since you wish to debate on your own terms. However, if you are able to watch this video, read Paul Davies in context, discuss the aforementioned articles and listen to the evidence maybe you can abandon your archaic beliefs, if not you are close minded and biased in favor of your own beliefs, which from what I have seen, you are. Apart from that, I wish you well on your journey to the eventual fate we all experience and ultimately succumb to.

[LNC]

Yes, I am familiar with Paul Davies. Too speculative huh? "I find your book too speculative," there now I have dismissed Cosmic Jackpot! Not really, I actually read his earlier book "The Mind of God" so I will read this book, though from the numerous interviews I have read of him I don't exactly see how you and him agree... No LNC, the paper itself is not far too speculative, one of the essential and most important ingredients to a life supporting universe is(are) stars. They provide a source of energy and also are the source of the chemical building blocks of life, without stars there would be no life. What this paper is showing is that the chances of a life-forming universe or rather one with stars is 1/4 at the outset of the universe. The physical constants needed for stars to form are not nearly as strict as we would assume.

 

Paul Davies is an interesting character by the way, I really like his take on the Wheeler Principle (Participatory Universe) and how it related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in that we don't have to go backwards in time for a cause. Meaning, as we observe reality, the reality is changed not only in the future, but in the past as well, this is a facet within the Fine Anthropic Principle. If I remember correctly, he argues that there are a vast amount of quantum histories or pasts that could have led up to where we are now, but as we observe them now we make selections of these histories, which by definition lead to our existence. He also extends this selection of quantum histories to the laws of physics as well meaning we observe these laws and by observing we choose certain histories that give rise to our reality, an emergent set of laws really that are not set at the big bang but become more refined as the universe ages.

I cited Davies as evidence for fine tuning, which he details quite extensively in the first half of Cosmic Jackpot, although I don't really agree with the conclusions he comes to in this book. So, to deny fine tuning, one has to ignore the evidence that is easy to find. In regard to the paper, a couple of thoughts. First, although stars are necessary for the output of the heavy metals necessary for life, they are not the only necessary condition, so if the chances of star formation are 25% as you seem to indicate, then that wouldn't translate to a 25% chance for higher life to evolve. Second, I question the 25% odds of star formation at the outset of the universe. When we look at just one factor, the expansion rate of the universe. Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time, "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." (p. 128) In other words, there would have been no star formation, because there would have been no universe. But then we can look at changes in either the weak energy force or gravitation by one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Or, Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the special low entropy condition of the universe as one in 10^10^123. Given just these three factors, and there are many more to consider, I see no way that one could arrive at 1 in 4 odds of star formation occurring by chance alone.

Regarding the Participatory Anthropic Principle developed by Wheeler and others, I guess it is an interesting metaphysical construct. It seems to assume a monistic metaphysical model, which a fair percentage of atheists find as a palatable alternative to account for the existence of mind. As long as it is not confused with a scientific model, it is an interesting idea to discuss philosophically. Obviously, the big problem with the theory is the chicken and egg problem, not to mention, the idea of self-causation. How does a thing create itself without pre-existing itself? Doesn't it beg the question that the thing already exists if it can be its own creator? Now, Wheeler posits the idea that mind exists and saturates the universe prior to creation, but then, what is being created but the universe. So, how can mind saturate that which has not been created. I'm sure he solves this by positing a multiverse, but that just pushes the problem back a step (or a series of steps) to the meta-universe and there again, we end up with the problem of the existence of mind sans the meta-universe and what is that mind (in his model) saturating? Can it exist sans the universe or is mind universe dependent? I find that the theistic model works much more cleanly and solves these issues philosophically without the contradictions. In the theistic model, God exists sans the universe in a timeless state. God becomes temporal with the creation of the universe (IOW, God comes into time with the universe). His creative act coincides with the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time. There is no self-causation conundrum to solve as God is separate from the universe and eternal. With Wheeler's model, I don't know the same can be said for minds and that begs the question of its origin.

This paper, or these papers? You realize there are two correct? Again, this is a paper done by actual scientists who are showing that the physical constants are not nearly as "set" or fine-tuned rather and that by tweaking them we are still able to come up with universes remarkably similar to our own. Presuppositional - meaning you are assuming or coming from a bias to bolster your own world-view that there is a God. A Priori - And you have ruled in favor of their being something beyond the material world - give me an example or a demonstration of something supernatural.

 

I am arguing that "fine-tuning" can be accounted for by law and chance (see earlier papers). My case beyond that is this, if it is found that the universe is or was actually created, how do we arrive at the conclusion that it is your God? If the fine-tuning of the universe cannot be explained, yet, by law or chance than why must we fill this gap of knowledge with God? Doesn't "God" apart from some Deistic impersonal no longer there God, come with a whole heap of logical, moral and supernatural baggage? What is more complicated trying to explain? That perhaps these laws or constants were set in place by chance, as demonstrably, many scientists are showing, or that a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity through unknowable means constructed the universe? This is part of the discussion. As I have tried to show you, a God, by your definition seemingly, is immensely complex in trying to rationalize in the context of our own world. You are essentially forcing a square peg of a God into the round hole.

I have made no presuppositions within my argument, so that assertion is false. Second, the question is not whether factors could be tweaked, as I'm sure a few of them could be, but how we account for the factors that we have that have no wiggle room. We also have to account for all of them as they are all necessary conditions. Again, apart from some outliers, there really isn't debate on this issue of fine-tuning. Of course, we can find skeptics to any theory if we look hard enough. However, when you say that the conditions can be accounted for by law and chance, you have to provide evidence that each and every one of them can be accounted for, and just the few that I've mentioned certainly cannot be accounted for by chance as they are outside those bounds. As for laws, we have none to account for the four foundational interactions(strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitation, and electromagnetism), that is why scientist are pursuing a theory of everything (TOE). Many, however, believe it will never be discovered. I guess we will see whether CERN can produce the Higgs boson and whether we move in that direction. You are incorrect, however, in your claim that law can account for fine-tuning, if that were the case, then the LHC would be a giant waste of time and money, but apparently people like my friend who is a physicist and who does research at places like CERN and Fermi Lab, don't think that is the case.

Now, you ask the question as to how we would know what the God who created the universe would be like. Would God be like the God the Deists believe in? Would God be like the one the Muslims believe in? Would he be like any number of other beliefs, or would he be what the Christians believe in? I think we have to look beyond the fine-tuning argument to make that determination. We can look to issues like morality, ontology, and even the resurrection of Jesus to make that determination. However, when all factors are considered, I think the Judeo-Christian understanding of God fits the evidence. Still, what it boils down to is that all of existence simply popped into existence uncaused by chance, or that it is the result of an intelligent agent who pre-existed the universe. I find the first option to be philosophically untenable, not to mention scientifically problematic. You seem to hold to that metaphysical model and want to clothe it with non-existent scientific duds. In the end, you still are sitting on a metaphysical model, not a scientific one.

Okay, so matter, space and time didn't exist, so, no physical constants are set, why couldn't something pop from nothing since that is a rule based in matter space and time? Not saying that I am essentially arguing that point, it's just something to brainstorm about. "Nothing is defined" therein lies your problem. You can't define it. I can define God, you can define God but IF we are talking about nothing, well that's a little different! Basically, because nothing, is supposed to be...nothing. Using nothing as a noun is in fact fallacious! Now, of course we have to use the word nothing, because we need to define something, but our knowledge of "nothing" isn't exactly based on nothing, but rather a concept of something. And no, if we follow my logic I am not defining things into being. Merely, showing that our definitions and concepts aren't as concrete as we would like to think because it is based on language and faulty concepts.

What is the rule to which you are referring? I know of no rule that says that something can pop into existence uncaused from nothing. We can define nothing negatively, not positively. For example, I can define a chair positively as a piece of furniture on which a person sits. However, I cannot define darkness positively since it has no metaphysical existence, it is the absence of light (a negative definition). So, we define nothing negatively as the absence of something/anything. We can define it, just not positively (as something), but rather negatively (as a lack). I hope that clears up the definitional problem and makes clear that although we can define it, it doesn't give it a metaphysical reality.

And why shouldn't we? The point I am trying to demonstrate here is that there are competing ideas and theories for the origins of the universe, some better than others. I personally think it is the flat-universe balanced energies theory often supported by Lawrence Krauss. The main point, is that these ideas have competition, which drives refinement and progress. Do you think we should stop investigating the origins of the universe if we (you) believe that God gave rise to it? How can we find out if God did in fact create the universe? Can we discover His means and the ways that He went about it? Is there a mathematical equation to show how God created something from nothing? It seems like it would be more difficult to create something from nothing rather than something to be self-generating under the absence of zero influence from outside rules. Time is not outside of the universe, but rather is a part of the universe, so really there wasn't a time before the universe, since the universe is the origin of time itself, so there can't be a "before".

When you posit the existence of anything, it requires an explanation (per Leibniz). So, if you posit a black hole, quantum foam, the law of gravity, or anything else with a metaphysical reality, it begs for an explanation, especially material reality. If you want to posit the idea that matter always existed, you have some huge philosophical hurdles to cross. For example, how do you explain today, for example, given a past infinite universe? IOW, how much time passed to reach today? Answer, an infinite amount of time. Yet, time continues, so we have not had an infinite amount of time pass yet, but here we are at this terminus called today. It is a form of Zeno's paradox. There are a host of philosophical problems that come about if you want to posit that the universe has always existed. There are also problems with basic physics like the existence of a universe that isn't in a state of complete entropy given laws of entropy and the laws of conservation. I don't think we should stop investigating the universe. I'm all in favor of places like CERN, Fermi Lab and other sites for investigating these phenomena. In fact, it was mainly Christians that motivated the study of science in the early days so that we could think God's thoughts after him. Still, I believe that many scientists of our day should take clues from their early predecessors and study philosophy along with science, it would help us to avoid chasing rabbit trails that won't pan out in the longer run.

Paul Davies - "I want to stay away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't fit the scientific facts. I don't want that. That's a horrible idea. But I see no reason why there can't be a teleological component in the evolution of the universe, which includes things like meaning and purpose. So instead of appealing to something outside the universe -- a completely unexplained being -- I'm talking about something that emerges within the universe. It's a more natural view. We're trying to construct a picture of the universe which is based thoroughly on science but where there is still room for something like meaning and purpose. So people can see their own individual lives as part of a grand cosmic scheme that has some meaning to it. We're not just, as Steven Weinberg would say, pointless accidents in a universe that has no meaning or purpose. I think we can do better than that."

Here is a good example of someone who, though he has a decent grasp on many philosophical concepts, doesn't in this regard. God wasn't within time for all eternity, that is a philosophical blunder on his part as that would assume that time has always existed (which again runs us into the philosophical problems I mentioned above). He is right however, that this idea doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians as many have the philosophical chops to know better. Here is another philosophical blunder on his part, science cannot produce meaning. Science can only tell us the what is, not what ought to be. He tripped over the simple is/ought fallacy here. Unless purpose transcends the universe, it is not really purpose, it is only a description of what is, but not what ought to be. Science will never get us past being pointless accidents of the universe as that is not the realm in which science traffics. These are metaphysical questions, not questions of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and the like.

LNC