|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said. All the accounts that present themselves as historical accounts are historical accounts. Not interested in taking any "outs," it's your suppositions that need the correction, not mine,.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Instead of pointing to the empty tomb, the apostle Paul pointed to the sightings of the risen Jesus as evidence of His resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8). Paul wrote this about 20 years after the events. But most scholars (including skeptics such as Bart Ehrman) think that verses 3-5 reflect an early creed which dates back to within just a few years of the events. As I recall, Ehrman dates this creed to within 5 years of the events; other scholars such as Gary Habermas would push it back to within 2 years or less.
Of course it is far from clear that there ever was such a tomb. The earliest report we have is more than twenty years after the event, and tells us that the witnesses did not pass in the story - at least at that time. The story itself is somewhat unlikely, and really, a missing body is very poor evidence of a resurrection anyway. The empty tomb story is not important evidence. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Exactly my point. The Empty Tomb story was not even mentioned in the texts we have from the first twenty years. A report of a missing body so long after the fact can hardly be considered great evidence of a resurrection. Surely it is more important that the man was seen alive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you agree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life?
Because up until now you seem to have been saying that the writing style in question is indeed evidence in and of itself. Now you tell me that isn't what you are saying. Which is it? If someone today wrote a recent account of a dead person coming back to life and they wrote that in a similar/identical style - would you believe that too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
You are misusing the word "style," I included the straightforward style of narrative among other characteristics of the writers of the Bible such as the lack of whitewashing in their accounts, such as the inclusion of incidental facts and so on, that all go to their credibility as reporters. It's their credibility that is the basis for taking their reports about the resurrection seriously, reports that include the disciples' discovery that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb, and their personal encounters with Him after He'd risen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
The inclusion of incidental components in the narrative and what you describe as straightforwardness are all aspects of writing style.
I ask again - Do you agree or disagree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life? Everything you say suggests you do think writing style is an entirely valid reason to draw such a conclusion. But when asked specifically you say that is not what you mean. But "straightforward style of narrative" and "inclusion of incidental facts" are aspects of writing style. So your actual position on this comes across as desperately confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The wording is unfortunate. Hebrews 11:1 is not using the word "evidence" the way we use it. A better translation would be, "Faith is a substitute for evidence when you don't have any evidence." Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Edited by ringo, : Added a word for clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
So, did C.S. Lewis take the talking snake literally or not? If you're going to cite him as an authority, you should at least know whether or not he agrees with you.
*Groan*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said. You don't even know who many of the writers were, let alone their credibility.
All the accounts that present themselves as historical accounts are historical accounts. But they don't all "present themselves as historical accounts," and stylistic approach is not an indicator of credibility.
Not interested in taking any "outs," it's your suppositions that need the correction, not mine. Correct away. You can begin with my supposition that the story of the talking snake is not true. Seriously, if you'd like to turn this thread into an evidence based discussion as if the thread were actually in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, then I not only think moderation is a good idea, I would love to moderate. I'll recuse myself for a couple days so that the discussion will have moved on from anything I was discussing, then begin moderating on Wednesday. See you then! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said. You don't even know who many of the writers were, let alone their credibility. Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion, which is all about how their credibility is established by their writing itself, their presentation of incidental facts as in any straightforward credible historical report (time of day, who all was present, that sort of thing), their inclusion of negative information about some of the participants, such as the men's lack of trust of the reports of the women who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. The point is that the Biblical accounts demonstrate their historical credibility in the way they are written. And I quoted C. S. Lewis somewhere, who was a professor of literature of the mythical type, who said the Biblical reports are nothing like myth. This observation was one of the things that made a believer out of him in spite of himself (as he said he came kicking and screaming into the Kingdom or something like that as I recall). Again, the credibility 9of the writers is in their writing. As for knowing them, one gets to know them from their writing and from what others wrote about them. Not rocket science. And this is NOT about "style" in that irrelevant modern sense that ringo used the word either. I've already answered all this, and all you will do by continuing it is require me to repeat myself. I'm not interested in making this thread into anything in particular, but believers have evidence for our belief and that's all I wanted to say.
Correct away. You can begin with my supposition that the story of the talking snake is not true. Already you require me to repeat myself. Why is there any problem about a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, or a talking donkey during the Exodus, when the God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? The serpent is understood to be how Satan presented himself to Adam and Eve, not as a natural phenomenon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
There you go again
Faith writes: ....their credibility is established by their writing itself... Is writing style a sensible basis on which to draw the conclusion that a dead man came back to life? You obviously think it is. So why not just say so? I suspect because when put explicitly even you think it sounds slightly ridiculous to do so. But that is what your argument boils down to....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Omnivorous
Omnivorous writes: ICANT writes:
I don't know. Neither do you. So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? I know the universe exists.I know the standard Big Bang Theory requires the universe to have a beginning to exist. I understand there is a law that energy and mass can not be created. That means what ever provided the energy and mass that makes us the universe we see today would have to be a supernatural entity.
Omnivorous writes: Could you define this state of affairs that you call "nothing"? What makes you think it could exist? I prefer to use an absence of anything, or non existence, but nothing is the same. The Big Bang Theory is supposed to have started nano seconds after T=0, the point the theory breaks down and can not tell us what was in existence. We are required to believe that all the energy and mass in the universe existed on top of itself, in a place that the theory can not tell us even exists. Some have said it was the size of a pin point. But if there was an absence of anything (nothing) there would be no energy there, mass, space, time, or vaccum. Thus there would be non existence. Since we only know existence it is very hard for most people to understand non existence.
Omnivorous writes: You've latched onto your own intuitive understanding of physicists attempting to explain complex mathematical/theoretical models in plain language, always an inadequate approximation, and used your human sensory experience of space and time to make arguments about theology. This led you to declare that Hawking's work supports your theology when it doesn't, as he has made clear. I try to keep my imagination completely out of the equation.In Message 46 I said: quote: I don't think you have a problem with the third statement. You want to argue about the first statement but you have not stated whether the universe is eternal or not. You seem to not to want to believe the universe had a beginning to exist. Could you tell me which you believe and support your reasoning with evidence. Now as far as me misunderstanding what Stephen Hawking's said. Here is the quote I used from his lecture of 1996 where he said:
quote:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Here is another quote from the same lecture.
quote: In this lecture he also proposes imaginary time, so the universe would have a place to begin to exist the only problem with that is he put it inside of the universe. I bolded Stephen Hawking's statement about the universe having not existed forever. I also bolded where he said it had a beginning. I understand Stephen Hawking to say two things in those quotes. 1. The universe has not always existed.2. The universe had a beginning. Which of those two statements have I misunderstood?
Omnivorous writes: But the BB doesn't give you scientific grounds for that, and your theo-logic is based only on a feeling. The standard BBT requires the universe to begin to exist. Since we are on equal footing as to what caused the universe to begin to exist my hypothesis is just as viable as any you may present. They all require assumption after assumption to present anything. But if we remember the law that says energy and mass can not be created. We would be compelled to conclude that a supernatural (something that is not natural) entity existed to supply the energy and mass that formed into the universe as we know it today. Or we would not be here and the universe would not exist. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Cat,
Why can't there be non existence? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This law you speak of - "energy and mass cannot be created" - In your mind where does that law derive from? Was that law in place prior to the Big Bang or was that law itself created as part of the creation of our universe in your God scenario?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question. Why? If you have followed my posts in this thread you know I believe a supernatural power existed prior to T=0. I believe the law that states energy and mass can not be created requires a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass that makes up our present universe. There is no other alternative for a source for the energy and mass that make up our universe. Hartley/Hawking proposed an instanton that if it existed would create a universe just like ours. That particle has never been found, and there would have been no vacuum for it to exist in. Cavediver puts it this way.
Message 311quote: Son Goku puts it this way. Message 75 quote: In another place Son Goku said: Message 275quote: So from a place that the math does not work the universe expanded into what it is today without any source of energy and mass for it to form from. I am supposed to accept this explanation for the Universe existing. I don't think so. I will stick with a supernatural power that supplied that energy and mass that was required. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024