Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:37 PM
30 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, jar, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, Taq (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 76 of 511 (771590)
10-27-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Raphael
10-27-2015 4:47 AM


Raphael's many errors Part 2
quote:

This is exactly the kind of conclusion that is not sufficient, since it basically says "we can't know for sure the original history, therefore the copies probably can't be trusted" without offering any alternative. This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). We can't say "because we're not 100% sure about the originals, we can't draw conclusions about the copies," because if we do that with scripture we have to do that with Plato, Suetonius, Tacitus, because we have no originals from them either. And of course older works which we have even less evidence for, like Lucretius, Pliny, Demosthenes, and Herodotus would be in the same boat as well.

No, it is saying that in the absence of good evidence for reliability (and with good reasons to expect strong bias) we cannot conclude that they are reliable. I am not arguing here for unreliability, I am countering your arguments for reliability. And if you cannot see that then you need to open your eyes.

quote:

It's not. All four women have a mystical experience:

Greatest I Am might find accounts of mystical experiences to be convincing evidence. I do not.

quote:

This section of the story was not a late addition. This is the story they went back and told the apostles. Why was this story to be believed, and not dismissed as the fantasies of grief-stricken women? I agree that this story is not as significant as the post-resurrection appearances, but it is not as simple as a missing body

Since it appears in Luke it likely is a late addition. Mark simply says that the women saw a young man in a white robe who delivered a slightly - but significantly - different message. Not much evidence of a mystical experience there. And that itself is likely a late addition to the story of Jesus.

quote:

That is not quite what I was getting at. The point of this is that Jewish readers of the resurrection story would have totally dismissed it because women are depicted as the very first witnesses to the resurrection

Mark is directed at a Gentile audience, as is Luke.

And as for the first witnesses to the resurrection:


3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve...

Neither Cephas nor the twelve were women. The empty tomb story - including the women - is nowhere to be seen. And that is where your argument fails. Paul did not even mention the women or their testimony. How then could it be a problem ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 4:47 AM Raphael has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 77 of 511 (771593)
10-27-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Greatest I am
10-27-2015 11:08 AM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
Do you consider the resurrection of my cat to be evidenced?

We have the absence of a body and eye witness testimony. We also now have my written account of the events in question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 11:08 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 78 of 511 (771596)
10-27-2015 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Raphael
10-27-2015 4:47 AM


Raphael's many errors Part 3
quote:

Another argument from ignorance here. We cannot assume the appearance to the 500 has little value because of the information we don't have. . We only work based on what we know, not the other way around.

Unfortunately you contradict yourself. The assessment of evidential value is based on what we do know. What we don't know can't be counted as evidence.

quote:

Since we don't know when this appearance happened, it makes sense that it would not appear in the Gospels or Acts, and logically must have happened after these accounts were written. At the same time, it must have happened relatively soon to their writing, since 1 Corinthians was written approx. 55 AD.

However, scholars date ALL the Gospels and Acts later than 1 Corinthians. And decisively, 1 Corinthians 15 places that appearance before the appearance to James, and the appearance to Paul. Since that appearance is mentioned in Acts, clearly all the preceding appearances had to occur before Acts was written.

quote:

Unfortunately, most scholars agree that these things did have a large role to play within the early growth of the Christian church. Your argument seems to, again, be appealing to the "we don't know" factor, rather than offering alternatives.

My argument is, of course, that the evidence for the resurrection is not good. Therefore that is all I need to show.

quote:

Mentioning the Mormons here makes sense, but it leaves out huge factors like the cultural norms of Mormonism, which includes control, indoctrination, seclusion, and community isolation. These things were not characteristic of early Christianity.

I would disagree. Acts, for instance suggests that there was quite strong pressure for members to hand over their money to the community. (Acts 4:34-35 and Acts 5 1-11)

quote:

Unfortunately friend, almost all of these arguments are based on the fallacious appeal to ignorance

Unfortunately for you, that is a complete falsehood. The only genuine argument from ignorance you identified was a product of your own imagination.

quote:

In the same way, we cannot doubt the validity of the NT simply because we are not 100% certain of the believeability of the events within the originals. In fact, this seems to be more of a personal belief issue than an issue of evidence.

It is odd that someone who is so free of accusing others of making arguments from ignorance would say such a thing. To presume that i have no reasons for concluding that the Gospels are unreliable before we have even discussed that topic. This discussion, I remind you, is about your claims to have evidence for the resurrection. Not my arguments against. On that subject you are clearly ignorant and jump to a false conclusion based on that ignorance.

quote:

So in conclusion, my appeal remains: I have known the risen Christ I choose to believe this. What will you choose to believe?

I do not find belief to be a choice. I will go where the evidence leads me. And it leads away from Christianity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 4:47 AM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-28-2015 12:16 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 511 (771597)
10-27-2015 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
10-27-2015 11:14 AM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
I don't get why this is such a big logical thing to you.

No, you don't. You really don't. You don't. That much is clear.

By your logic evidence for an authentic writing can be easily discredited by a copycat bogus writing.

No. Absolutely not.

As you say, you do not understand my reasoning. Try reading it again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 10-27-2015 11:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 80 of 511 (771600)
10-27-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Pressie
10-27-2015 7:53 AM


Re: God
Hi Pressie,

Pressie writes:

Really? The jury is still out on that one. Better change it to: the Universe, as we know it, didn't always exist. But again, it's not strictly true, as there's no 'before' our current Universe.

Are you stating the Big Bang Theory is wrong and should be replaced with a new theory?

Pressie writes:

Really? The jury is still out on that one. Better change it to: the Universe, as we know it, didn't always exist. But again, it's not strictly true, as there's no 'before' our current Universe.

Yes I have heard many assertions that there was no 'before' our current Universe.

Then why did you state " Better change it to: the Universe, as we know it, didn't always exist."?

But for the Big Bang theory to be correct that is impossible as the universe would be dead a long time ago. There are some laws that cover that.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Pressie, posted 10-27-2015 7:53 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 81 of 511 (771602)
10-27-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Greatest I am
10-27-2015 10:51 AM


Re: God
Hi GIA,

GIA writes:

Science says that before the big bang, all that is was compressed into about the size of a sugar cube, so your view of there being nothing is not what science is saying.

Well you are the first one that has guessed that whatever was at T=0 was that large. The math breaks down and can not tell us anything about T=0. Cavediver, and many others tell me it was the size of pin point.

But the only truthful answer is "We don't Know what existed at T=0".

So yes the Big Bang theory says there was no thing at T=0. The math does not work and can tell us nothing and there is nothing else we have to tell us what was there.

GIA writes:

But if I follow your view of there having to be something to produce what is, then that logic would also have to apply to your God who, from your logic, could not exist without having something before him.

Yes there would have to be some supernatural power to produce your compressed sugar cube size object.

From nothing comes nothing.

GIA writes:

You ignore your own logic by saying God is supernatural. Which is an un-provable statement as we have no access to the supernatural.

I do not ignore my own logic. I said there had to be a supernatural power to produce the universe and I call that supernatural power God.

GIA writes:

Icant said: I call that supernatural power God, what do you call it?"

I call it you inventing a God of the Gaps.

I did not invent anything and you did not answer the question.

So I will ask again. What do you call the supernatural power that was required to produce the universe?

GIA writes:

I do not give science any more credibility for their view as they have yet to show why the big bang occurred so they too have Gods of the Gaps at the present time that they are calling string theory, branes and multi-verses.

My next question would be: Where did the power come from that produced the space or vacuum where the branes could appear?

How could there be a bunch of multi-verses without all usable energy running out in eternity past?

It makes no difference how far you want to go back you have to have a supernatural power that had all power to create the universe or what ever came before it.

Nothing produce Nothing always has and always will.

GIA writes:

You have decides to believe in the supernatural while I have decided to remain in the natural primarily because your God is showing less moral values than what man, a natural creature has designed.

Now if you want to discuss my supernatural power I call God and your supernatural power you call a natural God lets not do it in this thread, but one that is dedicated to that subject matter.

GIA writes:

Remember that your God began Christianity by basing it on a barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should profit from your God having his own son needlessly murdered.

Your theology leaves a lot to be desired.

My supernatural God did not have his son needlessly murdered. He came to earth Himself and willingly gave His life that everyone could have the opportunity to live with Him for eternity.

GIA writes:

No moral man would do such a thing and therefore our moral sense is superior to your Gods.

God is not a moral man. God is a supernatural power that is a God of Justice.

Are you saying our men who are sent into battle to die by the powers that be makes your moral sense superior to the supernatural power that caused the universe to exist?

GIA writes:

I am a Gnostic Christian, yes, but our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.

A Gnostic Christian is no more a Christian than my cat is. The word Christian means Christ like and without accepting God you can't do that.

GIA writes:

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Isn't that what Eve did in the garden when she ate the fruit to become like God. In other words to be her own God.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 10:51 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2015 7:50 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2015 10:34 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 99 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 8:37 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 82 of 511 (771603)
10-27-2015 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
10-27-2015 12:03 PM


Re: God
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

No God.

I don't care if you call the supernatural power God or Jimbo, there had to be a supernatural power to cause the universe to begin to exist.

The pure energy that became the mass of the universe had to come from somewhere. It can not produce it's self. Therefore it had to come from a supernatural power. It had to be a supernatural power as it could have no beginning to exist.

ringo writes:

You're arbitrarily defining something "outside" the universe as "God". That's not a reason to think that a God exists. It's just a misunderstanding of what the universe is.

I am defining a supernatural power outside of the universe which I call God but you can call that identity anything you desire.

Fact is energy and mass cannot be created neither can it be destroyed. It can get to the point that there is no usable energy.

Isn't this the reason Einstein added a fudge factor to his equation because he believed in a static universe that had existed eternally in the past?

But without that fudge factor the universe had to have a beginning to exist.

Nothing produces nothing.

So why is there something rather than nothing?

Multi-verses would have produced a dead universe eon's ago.

Branes had no place to exist to bang together and start the universe and if they did where did that vacuum come from. Some supernatural power had to create the vacuum.

Now as to my misunderstanding as to what the universe is.

The universe is everything you can see and all those things you can not see. It had a beginning to exist in the distant past. The only answer science has for that beginning to exist is: "We don't Know".

I propose it had to begin to exist by a supernatural power that was able to furnish all the energy and mass that makes up the universe we see today. This supernatural power had to be outside of the universe, mans knowledge and understanding.

No matter what theory of the beginning to exist of the universe that is put forth, all would require an outside energy source.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 10-27-2015 12:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 10-28-2015 11:41 AM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 511 (771604)
10-27-2015 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
10-27-2015 7:17 PM


Re: God
So yes the Big Bang theory says there was no thing at T=0. The math does not work and can tell us nothing and there is nothing else we have to tell us what was there.

No, that is not quite correct. At best the science tells us something about what existed as far back as small fractions of a second after T=0. Maybe at times just after 10-43 s. But nobody knows whether there was a thing or a nothing at T=0.

Well you are the first one that has guessed that whatever was at T=0 was that large.

I imagine that people guess all kinds of stuff.

The universe is everything you can see and all those things you can not see

And yet, according to you, there is at least one thing outside of the universe. There seems to be some inconsistency here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 7:17 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 8:14 PM NoNukes has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 84 of 511 (771605)
10-27-2015 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
10-27-2015 7:50 PM


Re: God
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

ICANT writes:

So yes the Big Bang theory says there was no thing at T=0. The math does not work and can tell us nothing and there is nothing else we have to tell us what was there.


No, that is not quite correct. At best the science tells us something about what existed as far back as small fractions of a second after T=0. Maybe at times just after 10-43 s. But nobody knows whether there was a thing or a nothing at T=0.

There is nothing science can produce that would tell us a thing is there.

The math tells us that nothing is there as the math breaks down.

So what part of my statement is not correct?

Hello to you too. I have been very busy lately working on getting my sheepskin. For what, I have no idea I just decided I wanted it before my 80th birthday. lol I still got 4 years to get there, all I like is my thesis.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2015 7:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2015 8:29 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 2:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 511 (771606)
10-27-2015 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
10-27-2015 8:14 PM


Re: God
The math tells us that nothing is there as the math breaks down.

No, if the math breaks down then it doesn't tell us anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 8:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 9:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 86 of 511 (771608)
10-27-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
10-25-2015 2:58 AM


PaulK writes:

As you know we've been over this and the case against the resurrection is stronger. Despite your dishonest attempts to attack the evidence.


For all who agree with PaulK's claim, I recommend reading "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morrison.

Morrison was a lawyer who was convinced that miracles did not occur and that Jesus was nothing more than a (misunderstood) good man. He set out to write a booklet arguing his case, focused primarily in what he saw as contradictions in the gospel accounts just before and including Jesus' crucifixion.

But as Morrison researched and wrote his book, his perspective changed. He became convinced that he was reading true eyewitness accounts of an actual event. As Morrison wrote in his Preface:

Frank Morrison writes:


This study is in some ways so unusual and provocative that the writer thinks it desirable to state here very briefly how the book came to take its present form.

In one sense it could have taken no other, for it is essentially a confession, the inner story of a man who originally set out to write one kind of book and found himself compelled by the sheer force of circumstances to write another.

It is not that the facts themselves altered, for they are recorded imperishably in the monuments and in the pages of human history. But the interpretation to be put upon the facts underwent a change. Somehow the perspective shifted --not suddenly, as in a flash of insight or inspiration, but slowly, almost imperceptibly, by the very stubbornness of the facts themselves.

The book as it was originally planned was left high and dry, like those Thames barges when the great river goes out to meet the incoming sea. The writer discovered one day that not only could he no longer write the book as he had once conceived it, but that he would not if he could.

To tell the story of that change, and to give the reasons for it, is the main purpose of the following pages.

Morrison's book was written in 1930, and is now in the public domain. Copies can be found in numerous places on the internet, including here.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2015 2:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2015 1:15 AM kbertsche has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 87 of 511 (771611)
10-27-2015 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2015 8:29 PM


Re: God
Hi Cat,

Cat writes:

No, if the math breaks down then it doesn't tell us anything.

I was just stating what Cavediver has said to me many times.

But I am willing to agree that the math produces a blank sheet.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2015 8:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2015 9:12 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 88 of 511 (771612)
10-27-2015 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
10-27-2015 7:17 PM


ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:

But the only truthful answer is "We don't Know what existed at T=0".

ICANT writes:

It had to be a supernatural power

I'm sure the two of you have a lot to discuss. Let us know when you reach a consensus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 7:17 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-28-2015 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 1:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 89 of 511 (771615)
10-28-2015 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
10-27-2015 4:38 PM


Arriving At Personal Conclusions
PaulK writes:

I do not find belief to be a choice.

This sums up the reasoning of unbiased truth seekers. I commend you for your honesty but am unwilling to agree with your conclusions.(Not unable, mind you...simply unwilling.)

We talk of anonymous witnesses...which is true to a large degree. These witnesses were not anonymous to the people of their time, however.

I believe you said that people who want and need to believe will support the arguments in favor of the resurrection---which is true---I totally agree.

Aside from following evidence and being unbiased and critical, I feel that there are other reasons why many do not believe.

In conclusion, I wont say that either side is any better than the other.

It seems to have been mean't to turn out this way.

Often, when following an argument, I look not only for logic from either side but pay close attention to the emotions generated and ask myself why these emotions are so strong.(From both sides of the discussion)


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 4:38 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 90 of 511 (771616)
10-28-2015 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2015 10:34 PM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
All we can conclude is that He chose to believe--and defended his decision by arguing that there had to be an answer.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2015 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019