How is science different then "feeling" God?

[Tart]

How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?

[Tart]

You can read above for objective evidence.

I have read above and haven't found any objective evidence. Care to add something you think would be convincing?

No, i think what i said is sufficient...

I have already explained why it isn't. We'll leave it then with your claim to have provided sufficient claims which aren't.

Suit yourself...

[Tart]

See as a christian, i expect atheists to not be convinced, and them to poke holes in any evidence presented. If we are actually realistic, we should just accept that we wont agree with each other...

Saying "im not convinced", is certainly something you can say, but we all already knew that... "i see no evidence", good for you... Guess there is nothing more to say... right?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 141 by Tart]

Well, we can point to all of creation as the physical evidence...

And this fully supports the idea that God is a foundation for knowledge, which is a Christian claim, and that Jesus Christ is its rock and cornerstone.

More preaching, but why do you continue to reference ancient texts from a time when scientific knowledge of anything was nearly nonexistent and gods were often invented to explain nature (out of ignorance of science)? During those times there was no understanding of the science we have available today, so comments from people of that time concerning nature, the order of things, etc. cannot be used as support for anything related to modern science. They simply had no knowledge of it so the references are irrelevant and don't lend any support for your position.

Islam: created by Muhammad, who claimed to have talked to angels alone in a cave.

Just as ridiculous and unbelievable as a man being crucified and then coming back to life, or a man finding golden plates in upstate NY in the 19th century and translating the text with a seer stone, or many other examples of things that large numbers of people are somehow gullible enough to believe. It really is amazing.

This is consistent with Christianity. It is like prophecy, maybe broad, but Christianity has even more accurate prophecies, like the origins of Islam, and the nature of Islam, is accurately prophesied in the scripture (Genesis 16:9-12).

If you make predictions sufficiently vague and nonspecific, they can be interpreted to mean just about anything. This is how modern day psychics, fortune tellers and faith healers make their living, and gullible people fall for this nonsense every day. Just look at the number of people who believe that Nostradamus could predict the future by specific interpretations of his quatrains. Exactly like you are doing with Genesis 16:9-12 ... just take a vague series of statements and interpret it to fit whatever point you are trying to make.

Is there any good explanation for it? The Resurrection... The fact that no one wrote about Jesus during his life is not out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is why anyone would believe in Him.. Which is explained by the Resurrection...

All we need is a big tent and some offering plates and this would be a full blown revival meeting with all this preaching. The resurrection is just another christian myth that can only be accepted by belief in magic.

[otseng]

Suit yourself...

Moderator Comment

Please note the one-liner comments are against the rules. Further violations can result in the post removal.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 141 by Tart]

Well, we can point to all of creation as the physical evidence...

And this fully supports the idea that God is a foundation for knowledge, which is a Christian claim, and that Jesus Christ is its rock and cornerstone.

More preaching, but why do you continue to reference ancient texts from a time when scientific knowledge of anything was nearly nonexistent and gods were often invented to explain nature (out of ignorance of science)? During those times there was no understanding of the science we have available today, so comments from people of that time concerning nature, the order of things, etc. cannot be used as support for anything related to modern science. They simply had no knowledge of it so the references are irrelevant and don't lend any support for your position.

So you are saying, why would anyone ever listen to Aristotle? What magic time period should we cut off for them living in primative times? Newton also said the orderliness of nature is a result of a God. So should we cut him off, for being primitive? Well Galileo was before Newton (who also argued God exists), so Galileo is obviously primitive, "Father of Science" and he believes in God? How uneducated hemust be... What a primitive ignorant neanderthal

"Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Newton

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 155 by Tart]

So you are saying, why would anyone ever listen to Aristotle?

No ... I said that people of his time had no understanding of science as we know it today, simply because the subject had not been developed enough for them to understand many things. For example, the very concept that microorganisms could exist was foreign to people of Aristotle's day, much less that they could cause diseases in humans. They had no knowledge of the atom or its internal structure, or the nature of light, what caused thunder and lightning, etc. So any comments people of that time made on these subjects and many others must be superseded by more recent understanding in areas where progress has been made. So I'm not saying ignore anything Aristotle ever said, but don't let his comments on science issues take precedence over modern understanding.

What magic time period should we cut off for them living in primative times?

It all depends on the subject and a comparison of what is known today vs. what was known by the person in question. And "primitive" doesn't have to be a specific time. At the turn of the 20th century the understanding of genetics and the role and structure of DNA was unknown. So someone commenting on the subject of genetics in the early 1900s had no knowledge of the genetic code, and any comments they may have made on heredity and mechanisms must be superseded by more recent results.

That was my point ... just because Newton believed in a god, or Galileo, does not mean that they were right. There are plenty of scientists today who are religious, and plenty who are not. But if you're going to take the comments of someone living 2500 years ago on a science issue over modern knowledge, you're not being reasonable.

Are you basing your belief in a god on the fact that Newton and Galileo believed in a god? Do you believe in alchemy because Newton did? Do you believe virtually everything Newton and Galileo believed because they also believed in the existence of a god (ie. does their belief in a god mean that everything else they believed is also true)?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 141 by Tart]

Well, we can point to all of creation as the physical evidence... In fact, "physical", or "physics" is a work coined as a title of a book which argued that the physical world, and its orderliness, entails a design and creator.

Creation (the universe) is evidence of existence. How existence came to be in the question. There are various ways of approaching the question. One method is to simply make up an answer that one finds suitable, and declare the question answered. Another way is to observe and study the physical evidence. The first method was used for centuries by people who lived in mud huts and believed in witches and demons. The second method has led to our modern technological society. Determining which method is superior is a matter of opinion I suppose. Personally I would have trouble sleeping if I had any notion that there possibly could be demons and witches lurking under my bed. However, I normally sleep like a baby. Ignorance it seems to me, comes with a steep penalty.

Some things require a designer. A watch for example. And some things happen naturally because of the fact that matter/energy energy interacts with itself. Tornadoes and hurricanes for example. Tornadoes and hurricanes are not designed. They occur naturally through the force of quantum mechanics. Charged particles from the sun striking the southern portion of the earth in greater number than in the northern portion of the earth, causing an imbalance. Tornadoes and hurricanes are the consequence of this imbalance. Lightning occurs from an imbalance of electrons. The Earth naturally seeks to restore balance. No designer is necessary.

Which this argument is based on science, and the order in nature, reasoning, and truth. Opposed to any specific religion.

"...there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"
... Are words from...
The Physics (Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκ�όασις Phusike akroasis; Latin: Physica, or Naturalis Auscultationes, possibly meaning "lectures on nature")

And this confirms philosophies from many people, all the way up to even atheists, who argue that they need to make sense of why things make sense, why there is order in nature, how truth can come from a designed universe with natural laws..

Most people were simply wrong in the way they perceived the world around them for most of history. Because they were ignorant. Many people are still ignorant. There is less excuse for ignorance today, because the information is often readily available. But we all still have much to learn.

First, how do YOU differentiate between "believe" and "make believe?"

I suppose the same way anyone does...

Not really. I observe that corpses are incapable of returning to life, and that people, living or dead, are incapable of controlled flight (without gadgets constructed for that purpose, at least). Believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away corresponds to make believe, because it can only be imagined to be true. No physical examples of it occurring are ever offered. And yet you believe it to be true. Not everyone believes in claims that contradict all common experience. Because some people just are not open to being so gullible.

And second, what then is the best explanation for Islam? Or Hinduism? Or any of the other thousands of religious beliefs that have existed, past and present? The billions of people that subscribed to those religious beliefs, past and present, were just as convinced as you are that what they "believed" to be true, was unquestionably true. Their belief s were the "true" beliefs. And yet they all had it wrong. Because you know without a doubt that your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.

You believe all those beliefs you summarized are false beliefs... Right? So i guess we agree in that sense...

The point was, that these are beliefs that are held to the highest state of revealed truth by billions. And yet these billions have been utterly, and undeniably, deceived in their most devout beliefs. In their most devout view of reality. And do you want to know what I notice that all of these beliefs have in common? They are founded on some mixture of claims that contradict all common experience.

And look, all these religions are different anyways.. It is a fallacy to throw them all in the same bucket as the same, thats a false equivalence.

Well, the Qur'an very specifically denies that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus form the foundation and core of the Christian religion. So throwing Christianity and Islam into a bucket of critical examination in unavoidable.

I mean, whats the best explanation of:
The flying spaghetti monster? It was made up in a Kansas court to mock the idea of religion.

Scientology: created by fiction write L. Ron. Hubbard, maybe as a bar bet
Islam: created by Muhammad, who claimed to have talked to angels alone in a cave.
Hinduism: perhaps created myths of like Krishna

The flying spaghetti monster was created as an example of the foolishness of making stuff up. The flying spaghetti monster was created to mock the foolish nonsense that billions of people actually believe in.

If L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology to win a bet by proving that there are people basically clueless enough to believe almost any nonsense, than presumably L. Ron got paid off.

and the list goes on... They all rest on different foundations, on different objective truths, whether that truth is that they were a created fiction of atheists (FSM), or they were inspired myths, or whatever...

Again, atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Individuals atheist may create fictions. But atheism is incapable of creating fiction. But perhaps we should give a look at the dictionary meaning of "fiction."

Fiction
[fik-shuh n]
noun
1.the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story:
3.the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
4.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

A flying reanimated corpse is the very definition of fiction, because it contradicts all common experience, and because no such thing can be actually be observed. The claim conforms in every way to that which is imaginary. The same is true for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent invisible Being who dwells in an invisible realm and creates universes with a word.

All of these things are consistent with the Christian world view. Christianity, tells us that there will be false gods and ideals in the world. That they are non living, created deities, who have no power, nor any all knowing knowledge, or anything like these.

Over the last century the Christian worldview has become increasingly at odds with observed reality. Which, I am afraid, will ultimately mean the demise of the Christian worldview. As it eventually will with the other superstition based world religions. It is the nature of humans to learn and gain in knowledge. The demise of the superstitious nonsense of earlier generations is the inevitable consequence.

This is consistent with Christianity. It is like prophecy, maybe broad, but Christianity has even more accurate prophecies, like the origins of Islam, and the nature of Islam, is accurately prophesied in the scripture (Genesis 16:9-12).

Genesis 16:
[9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
[10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
[11] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
[12] And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

If I were Jewish I could just as easily read Jesus into this "prophecy." Muhammad was not named Ishmael, as prophesied. But then, Jesus was not named Immanuel as "prophesied."

So the world, as it is, confirms exactly what the Christian design portrays...

I guess, that is completely opposite from atheism which cant make sense out of any of this, other then thats just the way it is...

Except for the portions of Christianity that are contradicted by modern science and all common experience and observation.

Matter is one of the forms that energy takes. Energy can neither be created or destroyed and therefore is eternal by definition. Matter/energy interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics. The evidence for the truth of these scientific principles can be found in the fact that our technology, which is based on these scientific principles, actually works. And that's just the way it is.

Well your own struggle to logically make sense of God, isnt really determining the objective quality of whether it is true or not... Just that you cant make sense out of it... Which I bet you cant... atheism doesn't really make sense of anything...

God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, purposely created Adam and Eve and the serpent to be exactly what He intended them to be. He put them all in the garden together, knowing without any possible error what would occur. He then cursed them all in perpetuity when his plan came to fruition. But eventually God relented, and came to Earth in human form to bleed and die so that humans could escape the consequences of God's original plan. It's not just that this story makes no sense. Believing it makes no sense.

Are you struggling to make sense of Santa Claus? Or, when it became obvious that the story was too silly to be true, did you not simply walk away from your belief in Santa Claus?

Personally i think Jesus Christ made perfect sense out of God... And i agree with you to an extent.. Why do we need to shed blood for forgiveness? This is actually put into place by the Israelite's nearly 1000 years before Jesus... No one really knew why, just that God commanded it... Or the pass over lamb? Why does the blood of a lamb cause an angel of death to "pass over" a house? There is a lot of absurd, unanswered questions coming from the Jews. But then Jesus comes, he fits the puzzle perfectly, (that i see it very implausible to fabricate such qualities). He comes and fulfills the law, and the blood sacrifice for forgiveness, revealing the true righteousness of God by laying down his life for sinners, and praying for the forgiveness of those killing him... This makes perfect sense of such an absurd law, this is God revealing the righteousness of his character that we can look to and imitate. That when people persecute us we can seek to forgive them, and live faithfully in spite of any persecution, even up to death... And we see this exact quality in all the disciples, who died while being persecuted, but lived faithful right up to death... Why? Because they truly believed what they believed... I see no stronger of any beliefs then that of God, resting on his foundation of truth... This is the base of any "base belief".

First of all, I notice that Jesus left nothing of what he thought in writing. Therefore I have no way of knowing what sense Jesus made of God. Only the things that others said about Jesus. I also notice that God never actually speaks for Himself. He counts on special humans to speak for him. And then these "special" humans hand out commandments to the gullible flock. Sometimes these "special" humans say that God has commanded members of the gullible flock to hack children and babies to death with swords, or fly airplanes into buildings. And sheep do as they are told.

From the awaited Messiah, being fulfilled to the exact year prophesied. From the ministry of Jesus, to his death.. Where everyone denied Jesus. Not a single soul believed in Jesus when he was put to his historical death, even his biggest followers denied him when he was on the cross... And why? Becuase when Jesus was put to death, they officially proved to everyone he wasnt the messiah, which is probably exactly what they were wanting to prove... The messiah was suppose to come and rule as king, conquer his enemies, and reign above all... But Jesus came and died... If his historical death is true, there is absolutely no reason a believing Jew should care in the slightest about Jesus, but what do we see? Three days later, boom, the church pops into existence... Why? Is there any good explanation for it? The Resurrection... The fact that no one wrote about Jesus during his life is not out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is why anyone would believe in Him.

The historical record makes no mention of Jesus while he was alive. So whatever Jesus was claiming, it seems to have made little impression on his society at the time he was claiming it. Christianity rose to prominence based on the claims made by his followers in the years after Jesus was dead. The concept of a coming messiah was an old one, based on the promised saoshyant of Persian Zoroastrianism. There was no promise of Zoroaster being resurrected, but a direct descendant would be born 1,000 years after Zoroaster, who would usher in the kingdom of God (Ahura Mazda), and sit in final judgement of humankind. Zoroaster is believed to have existed late in the second century BC, so the appearance of his descendant was widely expected in the Mediterranean region.

The 'Second Existence'
In later Zoroastrianism there is a well defined eschatology: at the end of time the Saoshyans or 'Savior' will come to renew all existence. He will raise the bodies of the dead and unite them with their souls, there will be a mighty conflagration, and all men will have to wade through a stream of molten metal which will seem like warm milk to the just and will be in very truth what it is to the wicked. The sins of the damned are, however, purged away in this terrible ordeal and all creation returns to it's maker in joy. The ideas from which this eschatology developed are present in the Gathas but not systematically worked out.; moreover there is no looking forward to a time when the damned will be released from hell. (The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, by R.C. Zaehner [Published 1961] Pg. 58)

The author of Gospel Matthew made an effort to establish that Jesus was this long awaited saoshyant/messiah.

Matthew
Chapter 2
The Visit of the Magi
Mt 2:1 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος �ν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας �ν ἡμέ�αις Ἡ�ῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως,
ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν πα�εγένοντο εἰς Ἱε�οσόλυμα
¹Now after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi from out of the east showed up in Jerusalem,
http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mattwgrk.pdf

The word "Magi" has been translated as "wise men" in most Bibles. Why? Because it serves to obscure the Persian/Zoroastrian connection. Because the magi were Zoroastrian priests.

Magi
Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; singular magus /ˈmeɪɡəs/; from Latin magus) denotes followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known use of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

So what Gospel Matthew is really indicating, is that Zoroastrian priests came to Israel to sanctify the baby Jesus as the long awaited saoshyant/messiah. The belief in the coming messiah/saoshyant was already well known and very popular among Hellenistic peoples. The basic structure of what would become Christian belief already existed. Not so much among the Jews however. The Jews, who were in the best position to know what actually occurred concerning Jesus, never believed that Jesus was the messiah.

And what do we see happening? After that, we see devoted believers, who are willing to die for what they testified to, whos lives were changed forever, we can see their rebirth in the letters they write...

There have always been devoted believers. Basically it always comes down to what a person's mother conditioned them from childhood to be a devoted believer of. Mother's tend to indoctrinate their children with the same nonsense, umm, belief system that they were indoctrinated with. Which is why we still find areas of the world which are predominately one religion or another.

And this is exactly what we should expect.. We see them writing letters, not to convince you or me about the historicity of Jesus, but letters written to one another about their experiences, in which they display sound reasoning when they finally make sense out of the divinity of God, and the fulfillment of his law. They write some of the most profound, and revealing letters of all time, which explain in detail the nature of God and His design. Which can be understood with clarity (actually the most clarifying moment of my life was reading their words)... It is a revaluational epistemology, it is revealing.. And we see this in believers today... And then after some years of writing to one another, and communicating with one another about these revelations, they decide to record the Gospels...

The Gospels are not history books. They were written for the purpose of convincing the reader that Jesus was the divine being that they believed he was. There was no uniformity on this belief early on however. Which is why we actually have copies of twenty gospels today, rather than just the four canonical Gospels. The composite Jesus that emerged centuries later was the work of the Catholic church.

I think this is exactly what we should expect of the disciples, who stumbled upon this revaluation only after the Resurrection...

Seems to me, this isnt only the best explanation, but the only reasonable one...

The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away can not be made reasonable. It has to be accepted entirely on faith. That the disciples of Jesus went about spreading the false rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead and subsequently flew away, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable.

[Tart]

See there is such a thing as a "foundation"... There is a foundation of truth, and reasoning. Something that exists beyond ourselves that truth is part of. A Truth for humanity, and all that humanity struggles with. Our conciseness, our conviction, free will, the law and righteousness.

Look, every part along the way, i have been referencing the foundations of knowledge.

Logic, and an objective standard of reasoning. This is saying, that true Logic, starts with a truth that is from beyond ourselves. That it may not rest on our own reasoning but an objective truth from beyond ourselves... The Greeks called it "logos", and it is Jesus Christ. It is where our word for "logic" comes from. A "creative order" that begins with the Alpha, and ends with the Omega.

Logos (noun): the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.


This is our foundations for philosophy, and reasoning, and ultimately... our foundations for science....

Our law is created under God, and it give man equal God given rights. That we have free will, and all will stand in judgement for our actions, it a court of law. This mirrors God judgement for ALL your actions.

You guys say that "there is no evidence", yet on the other side of things, we have people like Simon Greenleef, who was an expert on "evidence", and he literally went from atheist, nonbeliever to Christian from him studying the evidence, and the law, and its fulfillment in Christ, all while being the founder of Harvard Law school.. The first school in our great nation.

"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."— Simon Greenleaf

And this is a modern man, studying the reasoning of the first apostles, an expert in evidence, going from atheist to convert.
http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

Christ is the foundation for truth reason, righteousness, convictions and law. He is a foundation

You guys act for "physical evidence" but we have the expert on physic, and even the people who coined the name, saying that Physics is proof of the necessity of a God keeping all things in order and orderly.

Aristotle: and the the "unmoved mover", the foundations of science... This isnt on any religion but instead on "Physics". The foundations of Physics itself sits on the necessity of God.

Just like our country, our rights, our "logic", our righteousness and free will, our law and morality... Physics itself sits on Gods truth.

"that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".

Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics
The Physics (Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκ�όασις Phusike akroasis; Latin: Physica, or Naturalis Auscultationes, possibly meaning "lectures on nature")


Newton said the order in nature proves God. Galileo says that God is where knowledge comes from. Einstein said his concept of God is placed on the order in nature. Dr. Hume, questions how can an atheist (like him) make sense out of the order in nature and induction?


The foundation for everything we sit her and talk about. Logic, reasoning, truth, objective truth, science and beyond, rest on the foundations of an all knowing all powerful God...

And you dont even have to believe it for it to be truth. You guys dont even need to believe in it for it to continue to be truth for everyone. Becuase that is what God is, he is a foundation for everything we know.

[H.sapiens]

... we have people like Simon Greenleef, ...

"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."— Simon Greenleaf

And this is a modern man, studying the reasoning of the first apostles, an expert in evidence, going from atheist to convert.
http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

I gave you a point by point refutation of Greenleaf, which you have not replied to.

Let's look at what his assumptions were, for therein lies the errors of his ways.

According to Professor Greenleaf, we must:

1) begin with an open mind, not clouded or congested by the impediments of prejudice; (if only he had actually been able to do so.)

2) subject the testimony of the disciples to no greater burden of proof than to which any fair courts would hold any other witnesses; (if only he had actually been able to do so, but the threat of perjury could not be invoked.)

3) realize that the factual foundation for the basis of the Christian religion as to birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection is based upon professed personal knowledge of our witnesses (i.e., “the Gospels are altogether free of Gnosticism and of the other aberrant theologies that pervade many writings from the second century);(if only he had actually been able to do so, the provenance of the gospels is so murky as to render this "realization" unreasonable. Keep in mind that he first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.)

4) accept our conclusions regardless of where they lead;

5) give no consideration to special or express revelation beyond the factual accounts of the evangelists;(if only he had actually been able to do so he would have realized that what is in doubt here is the factual basis of the evangelists and that without giving such consideration the entire question is moot.)

6) begin with the assumption that copies of the Gospels we have today are accurate unless and until proved otherwise—the burden of contesting their accuracy being on the person(s) contesting their accuracy, similarly to the presumption of innocence placing the burden of proving guilt on the one alleging guilt; (he has the burden wrong, remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here even ordinary evidence is lacking. All there is is a claim which it is most unreasonable to assume to be accurate.)

7) presume that individuals are conversant (“knowledgeable�) about their own affairs;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)


8) examine who and what manner of men the disciples were (e.g., were they men of moral and sincere purpose, or men given to foolishness and frivolity?);
understand that, in trials of fact by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)

9) understand that a proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent (i.e., admissible) evidence unless and until refuted by greater evidence;(There is no competent evidence here, not even if hearsay were to be declared admissible.)

10) recognize that, in the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility being on the one seeking to impeach;(The circumstances do engender suspicion, to declare that there is absence of suspicion denies the entire rationale for the discussion to exist.)

11) appreciate that the credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends firstly upon their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, upon their number and the consistencies of their testimony; fourthly, upon the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, upon the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances;(None of which are relevant if there is reasonable suspicion as to the identity of the authors and provenance of the the documents.)

12) consider that the disciples declared their “great truths� with one voice (e.g., that Christ rose from the dead and only through repentance from sin and faith in Him could men hope for salvation);(The most logical explanation for one voice is a single author or subsequent massaging of the documents to bring them into line with an established dogma.)

13) consider their varied and unique “qualifications,� Mark and John being much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life; Matthew and Luke too learned to be duped; (Again there is the issue of exact authorship and provenance.)

14) evaluate the paradoxes in their narratives—men contriving a lie would be consistent in every respect; men telling the same truth(s) from their own perspectives would tell it differently, albeit without contradiction; (There is no such consistency unless blinker yourself and stick to the gospels from a single tradition and translation. Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, notes that there are more textual variants in the New Testament (200-400 thousand) than it has letters (c. 140 thousand).)

15) dispense with faulty logic, e.g., the argument against miracles, which supposes that the Creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them; (Irrelevant.)

16) consider the “coincidence� of the disciples’ testimonies with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances (e.g., the works of other authors and discoveries of subsequent archeologists). (There are no "collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances" extant.)

All in all, in the face of modern knowledge, Greenleaf’s own words, while perhaps good argumentation in his day, are revealed to be weak, pale and wan and are only of interest in a strictly historical sense or to those with an underdeveloped understanding of today's knowledge. So your are discovered to be holding naught but a misplaced argument from authority. If he is the best foundation you have, then you are building on sand and it is no wonder that you rather impolitely ignore my input.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 155 by Tart]

So you are saying, why would anyone ever listen to Aristotle?

The opinions of individuals, no matter how intelligent or influential, don't really matter if they are not supported by evidence. Aristotle actually set back atomic theory by 2000 years when he effectively argued against the notion of particulate matter in favour of continuous matter. It was only in the 17th century when experimentation and the scientific method were established that atomic theory emerged again.