Sermon On Fine Tune Argument

[Neon Genesis]

Does LNC honestly expect anyone here to take the ontological argument seriously? What happened to LNC's favorite pet argument, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument and his William Lane Craig obsession?

[LNC]

I will credit you lnc with this, you have had to make me, become more thought out in my views on logic, thank you for that.

 

I get the impression lnc, you would think, it we don't exist, reality wouldn't look like it does, it would somehow change. Statements like, things can't countradict, or be two different things, things like that. What are the absolutes, they are the realities of noncountradiction, law of excluded middle etc. Like you always triumph, absolutes always exist. Define a absolute for me, within the context of logic?

The following quote comes in relation to the transcendental arguement, but the wording it used is similar to what I am trying to use. I tried to put the idea, which i agree with in my own form, but its just isn't working so I have to quote it.

 

It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time

http://wiki.ironchar...e=TAG#Version_2 Logic, as we know of it, wouldn't exist without a mind able to process it, since no concepts can be created without a mind to either conjure them up or observe them. But its basis would always exist, because its reality. The semantic statements(the concepts) would be gone,but the physical existence which they are based on would still be here. If all there is no universe, and just blackness there is no logic either. Since there is nothing to base the concepts off of. They couldn't form without the basis. So yes one could say reality and nature is logical, even if one its not around to say it is or conceptualize it. Its not logical to say, light can exist in the same place as dark, because physical existence doesn't allow it to happen. But if a mind didn't exist would there be a thing to be around to think that no, if there is a mind, anyone could do that, god or us. Anyone can say with certainty what reality can or can't do.

 

Logic is a proposition, how so? And even if it was, its just a declaration of reality, which exists the way it is, regardless of minds.

 

I'm glad that I have encouraged you to study logic more, it is a good discipline to know consciously and to practice correctly. I say, "know consciously" because we all practice logic, though many are not conscious of that fact. The problem today is that many have been infused with thinking that suffers from poor logic.

 

I do believe that logic is mind-dependent because logic is made up of concepts and concepts are both contents and products of a mind. If no mind existed, I don't believe that logic would have a foundation, a grounding. For example, why couldn't things contradict if they were not grounded in a mind that orders things? Eastern religions hold many contradictory ideas simultaneously, but in practice, why is it that they don't work out?

 

For example, I heard a story of two philosophers having lunch. Philosopher "A" claimed in a talk that the world was ordered in logic and that there were such things that applied universally as the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and the law of identity. After the talk philosopher "B" came up and said that Eastern religions don't operate according to those laws and that philosopher "A" had misrepresented those religions in his talk (btw, philosopher "A" was born and raised in India, while philosopher "B" was born and raised in the U.S.). "B" explained to "A" that when speaking of Eastern religions one must speak in terms of "both-and" rather than "either-or". After "B" had gone to great lengths to explain this "A" responded, "so, what you're saying is that when I speak of Eastern religions I either use the 'both-and' or nothing, right?" "B", having just begun to eat his lunch, dropped his fork and exclaimed, "I guess the either-or does emerge now, doesn't it?" "A" responded, "I've got news for you, even in India we look both ways before crossing the street, because, its either the bus or me, not both.

 

However, without God as the foundation of a logically ordered world, I see no reason to think that it would necessarily operate according to the rules of logic. We can imagine possible worlds in which logic wouldn't work the way it does here. We can imaging a possible world where things could contradict, or where mirror universes could exist where I exist in multiple realms simultaneously. Some things to think about.

 

LNC

[LNC]

How, is those laws not existing before there creation even possible, unless god and his law are two different standards.

God is not the same as the law; however, I do believe that morality on which the law is based, flows from God' nature, therefore, in a sense, they existed prior to his creating the universe.

 

What about, speaking outside of what I previously argued, there being a objectively that is applied a in a multitude of different ways. I would say for example, via the evolutionary explainable for morality, that preventing harm is the objective point. Now how that is applied, its its application.

I'm not saying that there aren't different applications for an objective standard; however, the principle behind the moral law is objective in nature. For example, "do not murder" is an objective standard, however, it is not the same as "do not kill" as people often confuse it (with the help of the King James translators). A person can be in a wartime situation and kill an enemy in battle and that is not considered murder. However, that same soldier can shoot a enemy combatant that has surrendered and that would be considered murder. What's the difference? The first was engaged in an act of aggression and the second, trusting in the rules of war and fair treatment, was innocent in that situation. Murder is the taking of innocent human life. So, same two people, different circumstances, different application of the rule, yet consistent to the core of the law.

 

Now, to your point. How does evolution give us the objective idea that we should prevent harm to others. We can look to the animal world and, though they would be considered evolved animals under that model, they harm other species and even their own all the time and none of us considers that to be immoral. In fact, we have TV shows that depict it all the time, not as fictional stories like we do with human murders, but as real life depictions. No, I don't believe you can get an ought by examining evolution. Maybe we can come up with norms of how most people act, but that still doesn't tell us how they ought to act.

 

To say it is at least partially subjective is to say that it is objective.

How the hell does that work?

Partial subjectivity implies that there is still objectivity to be found. If even one moral law can be said to be objective, say, it is always wrong to torture babies for fun, then morality has an objective basis and not a subjective basis. All one has to do to prove that morality is objectively grounded is to show one example of that. From there, it is up to us to explain on what basis it could be objectively grounded. I was involved in a thread some time ago where I asked people on this thread to give an objective basis for morality apart from God and no one could provide that.

 

Funny I agree with you for the most part, I tried to voice my disagreements, but I don't think that destroys what I am saying, because I am arguing, for what would be the consequence of a theistic version of what I believe to be set out by evolution. I am saying if there is a god given objective morality(which I would define at best, the types of things set out by the Old testament) that, there would be less application, less well subjectivity to be frank about it, just simply, one set pattern, throughout the ages.

 

If you must now what I think its the evolutionary version of that one set pattern, its avoiding harm to yourself and others.

 

Funny how much we actually agree on this, and how profound the differences are.

I still would challenge you to figure out how morality could be objectively grounded by evolution, if that is what you are saying. I don't think it is possible as evolution, by its very nature, is a system change. So, how could something remain constant through that change? For example, we could argue that evolution led us to be a slave-holding nation at one time, but that further evolution showed us that this is bad. Therefore, there is not consistent morality. We can't look back and say that the slave-holders were bad because their evolutionary development showed them that it was OK. Here's another wrinkle. Suppose that one person's evolution made him believe that killing a certain ethnic population was good for the species. Could we really say that he was "wrong"? How do we know whose evolutionary development is the right one? You can't simply go by numbers as this person may be on the forefront of future evolutionary development. There is no arbiter in such a system to determine who is and who isn't acting morally. We can look to the future and determine which evolutionary path is going to be most beneficial to the species. There are other issues, but I will leave it here for now.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Your a christian apologist. No offence,but as far as I can tell, bias, is the name of the game. Its one of the reasons, I lost faith the soundness of apologetic arguements, it requires one, to be bias towards christianity.

 

But I do agree with what you said. I am just saying, i am not sure how well you apply that.

 

Let's begin by defining bias: a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question (Dictionary.com). We all have a perspective and none of us is completely free from bias. The key is to identify our biases and to test them and that is what I do partially in coming to this site and partially through my study.

Which arguments for theism and Christianity do you believe that one has to be biased to hold? I believe that it is actually the opposite, the argument should be what makes one biased toward a particular belief. I have a number of friends who became Christians based upon the arguments for Christianity. They weren't inclined to be biased toward the arguments prior to hearing and accepting them. One recently wrote a book that you may want to check out, Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith by Dr. Holly Ordway.

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

So everyone is biased but Christians aren't because Christians are super special awesome or something?

[Sybaris]

I have a number of friends who became Christians based upon the arguments for Christianity. They weren't inclined to be biased toward the arguments prior to hearing and accepting them.

 

Like Tibetans aren't inclined to be Buddhist, Indians inclined to be Hindu, Iraqi's inclined to be Muslim, or Americans inclined to be Christian?

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

As a late-comer to this thread I was wondering if LNC would be so good as to respond to the following points, some of which have been touched upon in this thread.

 

1. What kind of variation in this universe's governing physical constants would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

2. Have these variations been detected?

3. What type of Multiverse would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

4. Has this kind of Multiverse been detected?

5. Which cosmological theory do you hold to?

6. Why that one?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest Valk0010]

Arguments around the resurrection miracles and Jesus, that would be ones I think would be biased arguments. I am not saying people who convert by this stuff is biased I am saying the people who create these arguments are.

 

Also what sybaris said.

 

I was also meaning to say biased by those who already believe or are predisposed to beliving in it.

 

Since we are recommending books now here is one I would recommend to you.

 

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Ghosts-Rising-God-Resurrection/dp/0981631312

[Guest Valk0010]

One of the reasons I find the evolutionary explanation of morality appealing is that it isn't monolithic. It does means morality develops, and it allows better then the theistic idea, to show the differences in moral ethics shown by different cultures even now.

 

It also allows for example why women in 1st were second class citizens in israel, but not now. Why gays where considered abomination almost universally, but now its not universal. It allows things like stoning disobedient children to stop being moral.

 

I doubt, we could devolve into anarchy, maybe I am not expressing myself clearly enough, and its one of the reason I am going to steal your wording on it, because you said it better then me.

 

Talking about how we can say someone is wrong, your not getting it. Its a matter of how we are designed to be, that is why most people aren't Hitler. We are for the most part designed with a compulsion to prevent harm. Now this isn't a universal security. Now also, its a matter of also survival and thriving. Each individual person acts in according to that design, ideally.

 

What people have to do vs what people do. I would say that is not important. How do we know what we have to do anyway, look at how many people thing there view is right. Its a clusterf++k. We just figure it out apparently. We figure out what we have to do to survive thrive and not harm, and how we do that, is a bit like defining the objective standard of say do not murder.

 

Do not murder is a objective standard, but people define murder differently. The bit about do not murder comes from the evolutionary need to survive and thrive and also not harm. Anarchy fails.

 

The bit about animals, is just our reception. Your point in that, would necessitate us to be able to know what exactly goes on in a animals head. I would say humans are unique in this instance since we are the most evolved species, and we have a mind and don't run solely on instinct. So in many ways its hard to make a analogy to other animals.

[Guest Valk0010]

Imagining doesn't mean possibility, we have only one world as far as we know, and operate off that. I could make a world with fairies, but that doesn't mean it could exist.

 

Other then that what your saying demands the question, do you believe reality would change if we didn't exist.

[LNC]

Your a smart fellow lnc, but sometimes you don't see bullshit when it stares you straight in the face. If he is self sufficient and needs nothing, whats the point of this. So if he doesn't need people worshiping him, why create a situation, that even made worse, by the creation of hell. Was he bored, if it didn't satisfy some need, this is bad, and it doesn't satisfy some need and just did it anyway,the situation seems to me, to be more cruel and evil then before. And even if I am wrong on the cruel and evil part, it still seems awfully unnecessary. At least to me.

 

Who said that God needed our worship. It is we who need to worship him as that is the reason for our being created. God created us to be in relationship with him, not from his need as he had no need for our fellowship, he did it out of his love. The fact that we choose to reject him and rebel against him is our fault and our choice, not his. Yet, to have creatures who were capable of love, they also had the capacity to hate and rebel.

 

LNC

[LNC]

It has long been accepted that Catholicism is compatible with evolution and the big bang and Catholics don't believe Genesis is a literal account. http://www.msnbc.msn...ld_news-europe/

How long has it been accepted? I don't think it is as long as you think. Still, not being a Catholic I don't know what this has to do with me or this topic.

 

 

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy and you just ignored my question again and didn't answer why I should believe you over the Gnostics.

Sorry, you first have to establish that they were at any time accepted as Christians to make the NTS argument stick. Gnostics have been called heretics since the early Church. It is even believed that the Apostle John was writing against pre-Gnostic thought in his epistles.

 

What is the correct way to worship God and how do you know your way of worshiping God is the correct one?

Read the Bible and you will find it.

 

Even in the bible, there were Christians who were Paul's rivals who believed all Gentiles should be required to follow the old law to be Christians. You mean you've never heard of the Judaizers before or the Ebionites?

They were condemned by the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

 

So you're saying the Great Commission isn't in the bible? That would be news to millions of evangelicals around the world.

I know of the Great Commission, where does it speak of converting the whole world? Even Jesus didn't convert every person with whom he spoke (see Luke 18:18-23). No, it would not be news to every Evangelical as I count myself as one and my job is not to convert the whole world. We are only told to proclaim the gospel, not to convert people. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Jesus said in John 10:10 that his purpose was to bring life.

Amen, eternal life.

 

Those Christians who you say are following man instead of God also claim to be following God and they say you're the one who's following man. So again, why should I believe your moral beliefs are more correct than them? If Christianity is the only true source of morality, then how can two Christians read the same bible and come away from the same bible with two opposing views on homosexuality?

 

Really, can you name some and tell me on what they base their morality? I don't really care what people say as much as I care what the Bible says. I think it is incumbent upon all Christians to be good Bereans (Acts 16), to check what the preacher says against what the Scriptures say and where they differ, to prefer the Scriptures over the preacher. Again, we have scientist who disagree about the same data, so I'm not surprised when sinful people disagree over the Bible. It is not the fault of the Bible, it is the fault of the people. Read it for yourself and decide as I have.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Is LNC seriously claiming most historians believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is a historically accurate account of the resurrection? I'm sorry but just no. And Thomas was not a skeptic in any sense of the word. Nobody in the ancient world was a skeptic. Everyone in the ancient world believed in God and miracles.

 

I said that 1 Cor. 15 is accepted as being authentic, written by Paul and early (early to mid 50s). However, the passage, 1 Cor. 15:1-3 is a creed that is probably dated to within 24 months of the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

How do you define a skeptic? I define it as someone who doubts some claim, whether that is a theory, event or set of events, or a fact or set of facts. Thomas doubted the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead and said that unless he had empirical proof (putting his finger in the nail holes in Jesus' hands and his hand in Jesus' side) he would not believe. To claim that no one is the ancient world was a skeptic is simply not historical. There were plenty of skeptics in the ancient world, including those who crucified Jesus. Apparently, you not familiar with the Epicureans. They were the atheists of the ancient world.

 

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

 

How long has it been accepted? I don't think it is as long as you think. Still, not being a Catholic I don't know what this has to do with me or this topic.

It has long been accepted that Genesis is a symbolic account describing the relationship between humans and God rather than a literal scientific account since the days of St. Augustine. St. Augustine wrote himself in his book The Literal Meaning of Genesis that if science and scripture contradicted each other, Christians should accept science over religion. This has always been an acceptable orthodox position for Catholics. It's relevant to the topic because you're trying to argue between evolution and religion but I'm trying to show you this is a false dichotomy. Don't tell me what is or isn't relevant to my own topic.

 

 

 

Sorry, you first have to establish that they were at any time accepted as Christians to make the NTS argument stick. Gnostics have been called heretics since the early Church. It is even believed that the Apostle John was writing against pre-Gnostic thought in his epistles.

And Gnostics called the orthodox Christians heretics, too. So what? You're still making a No True Scotsman fallacy. If the Gnostics were always accepted as heretics and everybody knew this, why would John consider it important enough to write about them?

 

Read the Bible and you will find it.

I have read the entire bible thank you very much and I don't see where in the bible it says what the correct way to worship is. You're just trying to dodge my questions. Quit it.

 

They were condemned by the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

And yet in Galatians 2, Peter and James disagreed with Paul on it.

 

I know of the Great Commission, where does it speak of converting the whole world? Even Jesus didn't convert every person with whom he spoke (see Luke 18:18-23). No, it would not be news to every Evangelical as I count myself as one and my job is not to convert the whole world. We are only told to proclaim the gospel, not to convert people. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

I guess this is news to Jesus then. Matthew 28:16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

 

 

Really, can you name some and tell me on what they base their morality? I don't really care what people say as much as I care what the Bible says. I think it is incumbent upon all Christians to be good Bereans (Acts 16), to check what the preacher says against what the Scriptures say and where they differ, to prefer the Scriptures over the preacher. Again, we have scientist who disagree about the same data, so I'm not surprised when sinful people disagree over the Bible. It is not the fault of the Bible, it is the fault of the people. Read it for yourself and decide as I have.

 

LNC

I just said these Christians who accept homosexuality are basing their moral beliefs on the bible. Are you blind? And if you don't care what other people say, why should we care what you say?

[LNC]

I am not saying anything about the reliability 1 Corinthian 15. I think paul wrote it. I saying you have to assume innerrancy, to see a passage that vague on what exactly they saw automatically means a appeared jesus like that of matthew mark luke and john.

 

And if we don't know enough about the crowds, then how can you say god did it.

 

I agree with neon, about the skeptcism bit. They were god believing jews, what would be considered a sign of god then, would be consider nothing today.

You haven't explained why one has to assume inerrancy. That is not the assumption of historians when they judge the authenticity of the writing. You also say that the passage is vague, but in what way? It says that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve (apostles), then to 500 brothers at one time most were still alive when Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians, then to James, and then to Paul himself. I'm not sure what is vague about that? He would let the Corinthians make up their own minds as to who did what.

 

Why do we need to know much about the crowds, the letter was written to the church at Corinth and they must have been familiar with those among the 500 as Paul implies that they could check it out by themselves. This is a historical eyewitness account, and Paul was offering corroboration for it.

 

 

I addressed Neon's skepticism claim in another post and will refer you to that, I showed that he was mistaken in his assertion.

 

Different views about jesus, by people who believed in him. That would be the apostles. Paul would have been aware enough of christianity that such a fanatical jew like paul was, the turmoil (which people like gerd ludeman reference to) would make it possible for, what would account to pretty much a nervous breakdown. http://www.rejection...onorigin.html#4

 

Sorry, but that is a bad attempt at a genetic fallacy. Besides, such a claim does not explain the empty tomb or the change in the disciples (people who suffer nervous breakdowns make poor leaders of new movements). It certainly does not explain the conversion of Paul, James, or Jude, all of whom were skeptics of Jesus and none of whom would have had a psychological reason to have a breakdown or to convert. Neither can such an explanation account for the number of people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus in different locations, at different times, and under different circumstances. That explanation lacks sufficient explanatory power and scope to account for all of the facts.

 

I would say lnc your biased against the natural. What is your evidence that god did it is even more likely then we don't know based off our very little facts.

 

I don't think of my view as a bias. I would treat the miracle claims of ancient books the same as say a claim of a alien abduction or the time I could swear I saw a ghost.

 

I assume nature is uniform just like the scientific method. If we don't see the blind being cured by mud, or the dead coming back today, outside of some bias towards the supernatural can we say for certainty that it happened back then.

 

Do you trust the miracle claims of other texts? The book of mormon for example has people that signed there named to say they witnessed the truth of the book.

 

Who said I have a bias against the natural? What does it even mean to have a bias against the natural? You claim that you are not biased, which, I assume means that you hold open the possibility of supernatural explanations and occurrences? Based upon the rest of your explanation, I think you have blown you cover on that claim.

 

I am simply looking at the facts to come up with the best possible explanation of them. I don't rule out the possibility of the supernatural as you seem to do. If the supernatural explanation is the best explanation of all of the facts, then that is the conclusion that I will come to. If some other explanation is the best, then I will go with that one. You have attempted to explain the resurrection appearances with a theory of nervous breakdown, which fails to account for some of the facts, so I conclude that it fails the test. If you would like to posit some other natural explanations, I will be happy to entertain them. However, I don't just jump to the conclusion "God did it" and then look at the facts. I look at the facts and draw the best conclusion based upon all of them.

 

Nature has been fairly uniform in the past, but we have no guarantees about the future. We assume that it will be uniform in the future. However, positing a supernatural event does nothing to effect the uniformity of nature, just as flying an airplane does nothing to effect the law of gravity. It is simply one law or power (Bernoulli's principle) overcoming another (gravity).

 

You say that because we don't see miracle cures today that they didn't happen back then. That is a weak assumption. We don't see singularities or big bangs happening today, so can we say that it happened in the past? We don't see macroevolution happening today, so should we say that it didn't happen in the past? There are many natural phenomena that we think happened in the past that don't happen today, are you ready to deny each and every one of them? As for miracle claims from other texts, I think it is important to look at the overall text and determine whether it is veridical as a whole before examining the parts. For example, you bring up the Book of Mormon. I think that Joseph Smith's claims of the origin of the work are suspect enough to look suspiciously upon the rest. Also, the book makes falsifiable claims about civilizations that supposedly existed in North America. Those claims have been tested and have failed to produce any artifactual evidence. The book also have internal inconsistencies as it claims to be a further revelation to the Bible, yet contradicts the Bible, which, if it was a further revelation, it should not do. I think there are plenty of reasons to doubt the BOM. However, the book doesn't make any miracle claims other than that the revelation itself was miraculous and that claim, as I said, has been tested and found to be false. If there are other books and specific claims you would like for me to address, feel free to state them.

 

And what do most historian do when they examine ancient texts who account to the supernatural. They do one or both of the following. They say its unprovable, or attribute it to legend. I would say the gospels are not exempt from something like that.

 

I am not calling god a wizard outside of hyperbole. I am saying this with certainty, one who says god did it is the most rational answer has no right to say that things like hallucinations no matter how unlikely are.

 

I know you disagree with people like ehrmans view of what the historical jesus is, my views are similar to people like him. Apocalyptic prophet, that sort of thing, that became the son of god(which is applied to people who aren't divine if you wanna know). That is where the cognitive dissonance would happen.

 

This is a urban legend, but this will make my reference to cults make a bit more sense.

 

Charles mansion supposedly levitated a bus over a lake. Now the people who followed mansion are a cult.

 

Miracles, followers with extreme devotion. See the connection. There is more reasons why I think of jesus followers as a cult. There would have been many different nonmiraclous reasons that people would have found good in following jesus.

 

Natural vs supernatural if there is uncertainty guess what most historians would go with. Natural.

 

My main reasoning for considering miracle accounts of ancient times as embellishment is because miracles as far as we can see don't happen today.

 

I don't think you really understand historical analysis as those types of conclusions are outside of the scope of the historian. They generally look at the text and the verifiable claims and then set out to validate or invalidate them. For example, is there evidence for the people, places, and events that occurred. In the case of the NT, there is plenty of corroborating archeological evidence. We also have supporting extra-biblical sources. However, it is not typically within the scope of historical analysis to determine whether an even is supernatural or not.

 

In the case of the resurrection, they examine whether it is plausible that Jesus lived. They look at whether crucifixion was a practice at the time. They would look at whether there is corroborating evidence that Christianity began about the time of these supposed events. They would look at whether it is plausible that Jesus would have been buried in a borrowed tomb, etc. They stick to the plausibility of the events occurring. Then medical professionals comment on whether Jesus' wounds would have killed him; whether blood and water would have flowed when his side was pierced; whether he could have merely swooned or whether he actually would have died, etc. But an historian qua historian is not necessarily going to comment about whether the event was supernatural.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying about wizards, hallucinations, etc. However, no one is saying anything about magic and the hallucination theory has long since been debunked for the same reason that the nervous breakdown theory is.

 

I'm actually not following your arguments as they seem a bit disconnected and not well laid out. Ehrman abandoned whatever faith he had over the problem of evil; however, his argument in that regard is pretty weak as well. I've done some writing on his views, both from a text critical perspective and from the POE perspective and I don't think he makes a good case in either regard.

 

I read Helter Skelter many years ago and it said nothing about Manson levitating a bus. Do you have a source reference for that claim? Manson claimed to be Jesus, yet sent people on a murder spree. I don't think we have a problem in distinguishing what he did from what Jesus did. In other words, we don't have a problem distinguishing a cult from true movement. I would have to see your source for people claiming that Manson did miracles, I don't buy it.

 

Jesus claimed to be God. So, no matter how much good he did, he was either lying, crazy, or speaking the truth. If he was lying or crazy, then it doesn't matter how much good he might have done or how nice his stories were. However, if he was God and rose from the dead, then he deserves our worship and obedience as God. You haven't given a naturalistic explanation to account for the facts around the resurrection, let alone the rest of his life and miraculous events. You have simply assumed that the supernatural does not exist, which seems to me to be question-begging on your part. Again, to say that miracles don't happen today is another attempt at question-begging. If you have already ruled out the miraculous a priori, then any account that you might receive of reported miracles is automatically discounted in your mind as a bogus claim. Therefore, you, by your naturalistic bias are going to always see the world through those lenses and will never be convinced otherwise. You have built your framework and nothing outside of that framework will ever be allowed in. Yet you claim not to be biased. You may want to reexamine that claim.

 

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

Apparently, you not familiar with the Epicureans. They were the atheists of the ancient world.

 

LNC

The Epicureans were not atheists. The Epicureans were deists. They believed in God and the soul but they believed the gods didn't interfere with the natural universe and that soul was made of atoms. They were not atheists in any sense of the word. And what historical evidence is there Jesus ever called himself God in the flesh?

[Guest Valk0010]

I am seem to be talking past you somehow lnc on this issue, so you know what i am done debating this one. I will be succinct in saying, that I don't think I know how to adequately communicate how i disagree with you on this issue. I don't know how to effectively and adequately express myself on this.

 

I am still interested in debating you one point, because I think its insulting that is said about me.

 

Who said I have a bias against the natural? What does it even mean to have a bias against the natural? You claim that you are not biased, which, I assume means that you hold open the possibility of supernatural explanations and occurrences? Based upon the rest of your explanation, I think you have blown you cover on that claim.

Your confusing bias with treating all supernatural claims equally. And I treat all supernatural claims as extremely credible therefore in need of credible evidence. I don't think you do that.

 

I am simply looking at the facts to come up with the best possible explanation of them. I don't rule out the possibility of the supernatural as you seem to do. If the supernatural explanation is the best explanation of all of the facts, then that is the conclusion that I will come to. If some other explanation is the best, then I will go with that one. You have attempted to explain the resurrection appearances with a theory of nervous breakdown, which fails to account for some of the facts, so I conclude that it fails the test. If you would like to posit some other natural explanations, I will be happy to entertain them. However, I don't just jump to the conclusion "God did it" and then look at the facts. I look at the facts and draw the best conclusion based upon all of them.

I debate your facts, and even if your facts are sound. Simply that saying its unprovable or its a glorified snopes story. The first claim comes from the fact that things like the idea of a god exists is needed for the case to work, the latter because of the fact that miracles were supposedly rampant at the time. The possibility of the miracles actually happening yet being unprovable has cross my mind in the past.

 

Nature has been fairly uniform in the past, but we have no guarantees about the future. We assume that it will be uniform in the future. However, positing a supernatural event does nothing to effect the uniformity of nature, just as flying an airplane does nothing to effect the law of gravity. It is simply one law or power (Bernoulli's principle) overcoming another (gravity).

Your right there is no 100 percent certainty. I would say its apples and orange to compare things like a airplane overcoming gravity, because that is within what we know is physically possible, the dead rising, ehhhh.

 

I like ehrman thoughts on this issue.

 

Given the nature of things, there is better evidence for some historical events than others, and the only thing historians can do is establish levels of probability.

Jesus interuppted pg 174

 

Historians more or less rank past events on the basis of the relative probability that they occurred. All that historians can do is show what probably happened in the past. That is the problem inherent in miracles. Miracles, by our very definition of the term, are virtually impossible events. Some people would say there are literally impossible, as violations of natural law: a person can't walk on water any more than an iron bar can float on it. Other people would be a but more accurate and say that there aren't actually any laws in nature, written down somewhere, that can never be broken; but nature does work in highly unpredictable ways. That is what makes science possible. We would call a miracle an event that violates the way nature always, or almost always, works so as to make the event virtually, if not actually, impossible. The chances of a miracle occurring are infinitesimal. If that were not the case it would not be miracles, just something weird that happened. And weird things happen all the time. By now I hope you can see the unavoidable problem historians have with miracles. Historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, but miracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened.

Jesus interrupted pg 175

 

If historians can only establish what probably happened, and miracles by their definition are the least probable occurrences, then more or less by definition, historians cannot establish that miracles have ever probably happened.

Jesus interuppted pg 176

 

There can be no historical evidence for the resurrection because of the nature of historical evidence.

pg 176.

 

I try to approach the gospels like a historian and a anthropologist would. Guess according to you I don't understand either fields. I think I do, but I am opened to be proven wrong and what you said about the role of the historian, is nothing I really disagree with believe it or not.

[Sybaris]

 

 

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.

[Ouroboros]

 

 

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.

[centauri]

You also say that the passage is vague, but in what way? It says that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve (apostles), then to 500 brothers at one time most were still alive when Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians, then to James, and then to Paul himself. I'm not sure what is vague about that? He would let the Corinthians make up their own minds as to who did what.

And how exactly were the Corinthians supposed to fact check Paul's claim?

How many years had passed since the resurrection?

How far is Corinth from Jerusalem?

 

Why do we need to know much about the crowds, the letter was written to the church at Corinth and they must have been familiar with those among the 500 as Paul implies that they could check it out by themselves. This is a historical eyewitness account, and Paul was offering corroboration for it.

Eyewitness account by whom?

Paul never met the resurrected Jesus, he relied on visions for his information.

Paul claimed he learned his gospel from no man.

Paul's claim also does not line up with the information given in Acts.

 

That explanation lacks sufficient explanatory power and scope to account for all of the facts.

You haven't established the "facts".

All you've done is assume that cult writings are facts, and those cult writings themselves demonstrate internal inconsistencies.

 

The book(of Mormon) also have internal inconsistencies as it claims to be a further revelation to the Bible, yet contradicts the Bible, which, if it was a further revelation, it should not do.

And the New Testament contradicts the Hebrew scriptures, under the guise of being a progressive revelation.

 

Jesus claimed to be God. So, no matter how much good he did, he was either lying, crazy, or speaking the truth. If he was lying or crazy, then it doesn't matter how much good he might have done or how nice his stories were.

Jesus also claimed that he had a God and it wasn't himself.

So, you're left with another inconsistent theme which does not in any way represent a "fact".

 

However, if he was God and rose from the dead, then he deserves our worship and obedience as God.

Mere claims don't make a "God", nor do they merit automatic worship and obedience.

 

You haven't given a naturalistic explanation to account for the facts around the resurrection, let alone the rest of his life and miraculous events.

What facts are involved here?

You've assigned the status of "facts" to cult writings that have no contemporary validation.

[Guest Valk0010]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/horner-till/till2.html At this current moment I am in a hurry LNC, but if you come back before I do, here is a source about the Manson leviating a bus thing.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

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.

It was C.S. Lewis who used the argument first but most biblical scholars think the argument is nonsense because there's no historical evidence that Jesus ever called himself God in the flesh.

[LNC]

Is LNC seriously claiming most historians believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is a historically accurate account of the resurrection? I'm sorry but just no. And Thomas was not a skeptic in any sense of the word. Nobody in the ancient world was a skeptic. Everyone in the ancient world believed in God and miracles.

And seriously, considering the fact that the gospels are heersay evidence, not written by apostles, or people close to the apostles, we are basing are religion on one person's testimony and a bunch of tradition. Not exactly something, to bet your life on I would think.

 

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

[LNC]

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

[Neon Genesis]

 

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.