The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[WinePusher]

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him.

This is a highly disputed point within ancient history and Biblical studies, the two academic fields most concerned with this question. Although most scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure (although several, such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier, believe Jesus was not historical), the majority of non-evangelical scholars (including, but by no means limited to, J.D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Geza Vermes, and Bart Ehrman) feel that the New Testament accounts relay little accurate information concerning this man's life.

And, of course, there are numerous biblical scholars who say the complete opposite. Robert Price (who has been marginalized by the biblical scholarship community due to his unsupported views) is disavowed by Bart Ehrman. Craig Evans, along with Craig Bloomberg, Richard Bauckham, NT Wright, and Michael Licona see the New Testament as being pretty much a flawless historical document.

As you can see, this tit for tat game gets us nowhere. The scholar whom I consider to be totally unbiased and unadulterated is Bart Ehrman, and as you can see from the quote I provided Ehrman does not agree with your position. Note that I said that the New Testament provides us with semirelaible information. Ehrman wrote an entire book refuting the Jesus mythicist nonsense, along with the false claims about the New Testament being largely fabricated.

It is also the consensus among historians and Biblical scholars that the NT accounts are filled with myths and legends surrounding Jesus' life, and that the accounts contain a number of historical inaccuracies.

It all depends on the specific event we're talking about. Certain portions of the New Testament have been historically substantiated and certain portions haven't. The main sections of the NT that face criticism from serious scholars like Bart Ehrman are the miracle claims attributed to Jesus.

To claim that it is a "fact" that Jesus was historical and that the NT accounts are at least semi-reliable is dubious at best, completely false at worst.

So according to you, Jesus was not historical and the New Testament doesn't contain any semi reliable accounts. Jesus was a myth and the New Testament is totally fabricated. Those of us who haven't been indoctrinated with this type of faith based dogma realize that this mythicist position you seem to be advocating for is completely false. The idea that objective evidence supports the position of Jesus being a myth and the New Testament being completely fabricated is the exact equivalent of the idea being argued for by fundamentalist Christians, who claim that objective evidence supports the position that Jesus was the son of God and that the New Testament is 100% reliable. The middle of the road position that I am presenting is that the historical evidence available does not support either of these propositions. All we can say for certain is that Jesus did exist and the New Testament give us some semi reliable accounts of his life.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul).

There is zero evidence that the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) are independent, and the vast, vast majority of scholars -- including some fundamentalists -- accept that Luke and Matthew used Mark and a no-longer-existing source called Q to construct their accounts. Therefore, they are not independent. The only gospel independent of those three is John, which was written much later (~95 CE), contains more legendary accretion (presenting Jesus as a god, rather than a mere prophet), and contains numerous points of contradiction with the synoptics (including Jesus' time of crucifixion, among other things).

Please keep in mind that the quote you are arguing with was not written my me. It was written by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman never claimed that the synoptic gospels were independent of eachother, he clearly said that we have extrabiblical sources outside of the Gospels that are independent of eachother. And I think it is reckless to talk about the Gospels as collective wholes as you've done here. There are certain segments of the synoptic Gospels that indicate interdependence and there are certain sections of the Gospels that indicate independence.

Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.

Unfortunately for the believer, no historical sources "like that" (independent, unbiased, in the original language) exist for the Jesus story.

You do realize you're arguing with probably the most respected and esteemed New Testament scholar of our time, right? This just shows that there many nontheists do have problems with accepting facts that are inconsistent with their worldview.

]Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life.

If by "a couple years," you mean 25 years, then yes (and this assumes Jesus was historical in the first place, which is far from certain).

The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers. -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

And the existence of Jesus is certain. The existence of Jesus is certain among serious intellectuals, including the society of biblical scholarship. The only place where this fact is uncertain is in the minds of some dogmatic, fundamentalist atheists. Here are two excellent videos illustrating my point:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

First of all, your point goes against the Catholic doctrine that Jesus had no siblings (because Mary was an eternal virgin), which is problematic for you.

True, assuming a strict adherence to Catholic creed and doctrine I would have to believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life and was assumed up into heaven. Is there any historical evidence that supports this? No. It is an article of faith that I accept. Additionally, the point has been raised by many Catholic scholars that James may not have necessarily been the biological brother of Jesus, and therefore there's no need to think that Mary has sex. With that aside....

With that aside, Paul disputed heavily with James, and there is no evidence they ever made up or came to a consensus on theological matters. Also, this point is irrelevant to the truth of the Jesus story, as simply knowing people who were close to an alleged miracle worker does not provide evidence that the person actually performed miracles. For instance, many of David Koresh's followers are still alive today and still insist that David Koresh was a god, but this, in no way, provides evidence that Koresh actually performed miracles.

I think your missing the point. The point Ehrman is trying to make is that people who advocate the mythicist position are completely wrong. Using the standard and canons of ancient history Jesus did exist, and portions the New Testament can be verifiably established. The point of contention lies within the miracle claims attributed to Jesus, not in his existence.

[Haven]

So according to you, Jesus was not historical and the New Testament doesn't contain any semi reliable accounts. Jesus was a myth and the New Testament is totally fabricated.

No, that's not my position at all, but another straw man. I am agnostic as to the existence of Jesus, and I feel the gospel accounts cannot be trusted to be historically accurate in its natural or magical claims. That does not mean I feel the gospels are "totally fabricated."

The idea that objective evidence supports the position of Jesus being a myth and the New Testament being completely fabricated is the exact equivalent of the idea being argued for by fundamentalist Christians, who claim that objective evidence supports the position that Jesus was the son of God and that the New Testament is 100% reliable. The middle of the road position that I am presenting is that the historical evidence available does not support either of these propositions. All we can say for certain is that Jesus did exist and the New Testament give us some semi reliable accounts of his life.

The middle-of-the-road position I'm taking is that there is not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other whether or not Jesus existed, so the most logical position to take on his existence is total agnosticism. Until more -- preferably physical -- evidence can be presented for the existence of a historical Jesus, my position of agnosticism will not change.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul).

There is zero evidence that the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) are independent, and the vast, vast majority of scholars -- including some fundamentalists -- accept that Luke and Matthew used Mark and a no-longer-existing source called Q to construct their accounts. Therefore, they are not independent. The only gospel independent of those three is John, which was written much later (~95 CE), contains more legendary accretion (presenting Jesus as a god, rather than a mere prophet), and contains numerous points of contradiction with the synoptics (including Jesus' time of crucifixion, among other things).

Please keep in mind that the quote you are arguing with was not written my me. It was written by Bart Ehrman.

That is irrelevant, appeals to authority mean nothing to me. I stand by my position that the gospels are not independent accounts based on the evidence surrounding the issue. Dr. Ehrman, as far as I know, concurs with me that the synoptics were not independent accounts. It would be interesting to see the context surrounding Dr. Ehrman's words that you quoted . . . I suspect there's more to the story.

Ehrman never claimed that the synoptic gospels were independent of eachother, he clearly said that we have extrabiblical sources outside of the Gospels that are independent of eachother.

I would concur with this. However, these extrabiblical sources are either too late and/or too biased (as in the case of the early Church Fathers) or only establish the existence of Christians and Christian leaders, not Jesus himself (as in the case of Tacitus, Josephus (the supernatural parts of the Testimonium were fabricated, while the authentic parts were based on a now-lost Christian gospel, and hence dubious), and Suetonius).

There are certain segments of the synoptic Gospels that indicate interdependence and there are certain sections of the Gospels that indicate independence.

That is correct, but this fact does not mean that the gospels can be considered "independent sources."

You do realize you're arguing with probably the most respected and esteemed New Testament scholar of our time, right? This just shows that there many nontheists do have problems with accepting facts that are inconsistent with their worldview.

Appeals to authority mean nothing to me, as I said earlier. I have a deep respect for Prof. Ehrman and agree with many of his views, but I won't hesitate to go against them if I think the evidence supports it. If the evidence points away from the view of every scholar, I will follow the evidence.

The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers. -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

How is this relevant? We know Alexander the Great existed because we have physical evidence establishing his existence, and numerous political events that are inexplicable except in light of his existence and action. No such evidence exists for Jesus.

And the existence of Jesus is certain. The existence of Jesus is certain among serious intellectuals, including the society of biblical scholarship.

The existence of WinePusher isn't even certain, let alone the existence of Jesus. Epistemically, very few things rise to the level of certainty. What you mean is that the existence of Jesus is highly likely. To that, I'll reiterate my earlier position of agnosticism: there simply isn't enough evidence to establish that Jesus' existence is more likely than his nonexistence. My position will not change until evidence can be produced that provides support for either the factualist or the mythicist positions.

The only place where this fact is uncertain is in the minds of some dogmatic, fundamentalist atheists.

I'm not an atheist at all, let alone a dogmatic, fundamentalist one.

True, assuming a strict adherence to Catholic creed and doctrine I would have to believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life and was assumed up into heaven. Is there any historical evidence that supports this? No. It is an article of faith that I accept.

Thank you for being honest, WP . Still, I find it strange that you are using something you don't actually believe in as support for your position.

I think your missing the point. The point Ehrman is trying to make is that people who advocate the mythicist position are completely wrong. Using the standard and canons of ancient history Jesus did exist, and portions the New Testament can be verifiably established. The point of contention lies within the miracle claims attributed to Jesus, not in his existence.

Maybe you should find a mythicist to rail against, because I'm not one.

[WinePusher]

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty.

This "fact" is like the other three: not a fact at all.

Haven, I provided links to nonbiased sources (excluding William Lane Craig) in order to substantiate all these facts. No offense, but I do not consider you more authoritative than the sources I cite. I regard you as a very good debater, and I find your posts incredibly intelligent and well written, but I think you do yourself a dis-service by denying these four facts I listed. You can read the sources for yourself and you can disagree with them all you want, but there comes a point when arguing with facts becomes completely futile and self defeating. I'm sure you'd say that same thing about young earth creationists who are constantly arguing with evolutionary theory. Well, what you're doing here is no different imo.

Keep in mind that this "fact" assumes Jesus was historical, which is in dispute.[/i]

Perhaps it is in dispute among atheists on the internet, but it is not in dispute among scholars in real life. The videos I linked with Bart Ehrman prove my point.

Still, even assuming that, the idea that there was an empty tomb is highly dubious. Nonfundamentalist scholars are heavily divided on whether there was a tomb at all (with J.D. Crossan, notably, claiming there was not), because it would have been highly unusual for the victim of a Roman crucifixion to be buried. Most such individuals were left to rot on their crosses or burned in a camp outside the town, so it would be reasonable to assume that a similar thing happened to Jesus. In addition, there is no physical evidence that Jesus was buried, as well as no secular sources reporting it.

This is a very weak objection in light of all the evidence we have. The most persuasive fact, pointed out by William Lane Craig, is that Jewish polemic actually presupposed an empty tomb. Similarly, the stolen body hypothesis presupposs an empty tomb. Additionally, the Roman governor overseeing the death of Jesus was Pilate, and if you remember Pilate was extremely sympathetic with Jesus' situation and was reluctant to have him crucified. Taking this information into account, it is reasonable to believe that Pilate would have allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus and have it buried.

Even if there were an empty tomb, however, that in no way provides evidence for a resurrection. In fact, literally any naturalistic explanation (inclduing extremely improbable ones) would be more likely than an explanation that requires the suspension of the laws of identity and non-contradiction and the violation of essentially all physical laws.

Yes, I would agree that naturalistic explanations automatically trump any supernatural explanation. Again, this thread is all about intellectual honesty. While the empty tomb does undermine the narrative you're trying to push about Jesus being a myth and the New Testament being unreliable it is a fact, whether you like it or not. Intellectual honesty requires us to admit to certain things even though they may run contrary to our beliefs.

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Once again, any natural explanation, no matter how improbable, convoluted, or far-fetched, is more likely than a magical one.

No disagreements here. But, in order to have an honest debate about this you must first admit to the tomb being empty. If you continue to deny this fact then it will be impossible for us to have a sincere discussion about the possible explanations for it.

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts.

What well-established facts? You've yet to provide one, let alone four.

No, you (just like all the creationists out there) choose to deny the facts because they are inconsistent with your position. You have to understand that to the objective observer the arguments you've been making here are no different than the arguments creationists make against evolution. Evolution is a fact, along with the beginning of the universe, and the fine tuning of the Jesus for life, and the existence of Jesus, and the empty tomb. Dogmatic, fundamentalist atheism/nontheism is no better than dogmatic, fundamentalist Christianity.

In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

I'm not an atheist, so I'll have to let an atheist respond to this one.

I also said nontheist. You are a nontheist right? You do not identify with any forms of theism?

[Haven]

Haven, I provided links to nonbiased sources (excluding William Lane Craig) in order to substantiate all these facts. No offense, but I do not consider you more authoritative than the sources I cite.

You're right that Dr. Craig, who is essentially a traveling evangelical preacher, is far from an unbiased source. You're also right that Biblical scholars are more authoritative in their fields than I, however, I don't feel these scholars' findings provide enough evidence to support the historicity of Jesus (keep in mind I am NOT a mythicist, I am agnostic as to the existence of Jesus).

I regard you as a very good debater, and I find your posts incredibly intelligent and well written, but I think you do yourself a dis-service by denying these four facts I listed.

Thank you.

Keep in mind that I don't "deny" these "facts" (with the exception of #1), I simply say there is not enough evidence to establish their factuality. I do feel it is more likely than not that Jesus, if he existed, was not buried, but I don't claim such a thing to be a fact.

Perhaps it is in dispute among atheists on the internet, but it is not in dispute among scholars in real life. The videos I linked with Bart Ehrman prove my point.

Price and Carrier aren't scholars? The fact that you disagree with them doesn't mean they aren't scholars.

This is a very weak objection in light of all the evidence we have. The most persuasive fact, pointed out by William Lane Craig, is that Jewish polemic actually presupposed an empty tomb. Additionally, the Roman governor overseeing the death of Jesus was Pilate, and if you remember Pilate was extremely sympathetic with Jesus' situation and was reluctant to have him crucified. Taking this information into account, it is reasonable to believe that Pilate would have allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus and have it buried.

The Jewish polemic is found only in the gospels, as is the Pilate sympathy story, and the accuracy of the gospels themselves are what is up for discussion. To assert that this polemic provides support for the Christian account, when it itself comes from the Christian account, is question-begging.

Keep in mind that if Jews were saying something akin to "What Jesus? We don't know of any such man" or "What tomb? He was left on the cross to rot" it would be highly unlikely for the gospel writers to include these polemics in their narrative for reasons that should be obvious.

Similarly, the stolen body hypothesis presupposs an empty tomb.

Maybe you'd want to find someone who supports it, because I don't. My position on the Jesus matter is that he may or may not have existed, and if he did exist there is little reliable information on his life and zero evidence he was a god or came back from the dead.

No, you (just like all the creationists out there) choose to deny the facts because they are inconsistent with your position.

See my above comments on "denial."

You don't get to assume 90% of your worldview and then chide skeptics for not limiting their debates to the other 10%. You can't just assert a head start. Everything about the Christian religion must be supported by empirical evidence, and, unfortunately for you, your "facts" are not. The evidence for Jesus is flimsy at best, the notion of fine-tuning is incoherent, the universe was not "created" from nothing, and it is unlikely that there was an empty tomb.

I also said nontheist. You are a nontheist right? You do not identify with any forms of theism?

I'm an apatheist: I don't care whether or not gods exist, as it is obvious that such beings either do not exist or have no impact on observable reality or human society, and therefore the existence of such beings has little intellectual or practical impact upon individuals' lives. Whether or not one or more gods exist, life will go on as it always has. There are far more pressing intellectual matters for scholars to study, and far more vital practical matters for people to address.

[Peter]

The main problems I have in debating theists is that first, they cannot tell the difference between facts and wishful thinking and second, their faith will not allow their "facts" to be modified even slightly by reason or evidence.

[WinePusher]

Haven, I've consolidated your two posts into one big post here. I've edited out some quotations that I feel have already been sufficiently addressed.

So according to you, Jesus was not historical and the New Testament doesn't contain any semi reliable accounts. Jesus was a myth and the New Testament is totally fabricated.

No, that's not my position at all, but another straw man. I am agnostic as to the existence of Jesus, and I feel the gospel accounts cannot be trusted to be historically accurate in its natural or magical claims. That does not mean I feel the gospels are "totally fabricated."

You see, I don't think this is a sincere position to take considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that is available. How can you possibly be an agnostic regarding the existence of Jesus when the vast majority of biblical scholars have suggested otherwise? Is what they say completely without any merit? Creationists will say the exact same thing about 'macro'evolution. In their minds there is not enough evidence to support 'macro'evolution, but those of us who actually know a thing or two about evolutionary biology realize that they're simply wrong.

The idea that objective evidence supports the position of Jesus being a myth and the New Testament being completely fabricated is the exact equivalent of the idea being argued for by fundamentalist Christians, who claim that objective evidence supports the position that Jesus was the son of God and that the New Testament is 100% reliable. The middle of the road position that I am presenting is that the historical evidence available does not support either of these propositions. All we can say for certain is that Jesus did exist and the New Testament give us some semi reliable accounts of his life.

The middle-of-the-road position I'm taking is that there is not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other whether or not Jesus existed, so the most logical position to take on his existence is total agnosticism. Until more -- preferably physical -- evidence can be presented for the existence of a historical Jesus, my position of agnosticism will not change.

You seem to be using a type of evidentiary standard that is not employed in biblical scholarship and ancient history. What type of physical evidence would satisfy you? Bart Ehrman already presented evidence for the existence of Jesus that is consistent with ancient historical methodology, as have many other biblical scholars. How are we to establish of existence of anybody that lived in the ancient world? We first look for any attestation to their existence in ancient records and manuscripts. If there are multiple attestations to the person, and if these multiple attestations are independent from one another, then the probability of the person actually existing is enhanced greatly. We have multiple, independent attestation for Jesus of Nazareth. And secondly, we analyze the circumstances surrounding the person in question to determine whether their nonexistence is a real possibility (for example, WWII would be impossible if Hitler weren't real). It would be impossible to explain the widespread movement of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in the first and second century if Jesus wasn't real.

Please keep in mind that the quote you are arguing with was not written my me. It was written by Bart Ehrman.

That is irrelevant, appeals to authority mean nothing to me. I stand by my position that the gospels are not independent accounts based on the evidence surrounding the issue. Dr. Ehrman, as far as I know, concurs with me that the synoptics were not independent accounts. It would be interesting to see the context surrounding Dr. Ehrman's words that you quoted . . . I suspect there's more to the story.

As I said, portions of the Gospels are appear to be interdependent while other portions appears to be independent. The way you keep referring to the Gospels as collective wholes is inappropriate. And why are you focusing so much on the synoptics? Ehrman not only cites the Gospels for Jesus' existence, but also Paul along with Peter and James. And then of course there are references by Jewish and Roman sources in the second century. The vast majority of scholars accept Jesus' existence. Are they all missing something?

You do realize you're arguing with probably the most respected and esteemed New Testament scholar of our time, right? This just shows that there many nontheists do have problems with accepting facts that are inconsistent with their worldview.

Appeals to authority mean nothing to me, as I said earlier. I have a deep respect for Prof. Ehrman and agree with many of his views, but I won't hesitate to go against them if I think the evidence supports it. If the evidence points away from the view of every scholar, I will follow the evidence.

According to biblical scholarship and ancient history there is no lack of evidence for Jesus. If there were we wouldn't have such a strong consensus among historians. So what is the evidence against Jesus? If there is no evidence against Jesus' existence then you have no valid point.

The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers. -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

How is this relevant? We know Alexander the Great existed because we have physical evidence establishing his existence, and numerous political events that are inexplicable except in light of his existence and action. No such evidence exists for Jesus.

It's relevant because you implied that 25 years was a long time. In ancient history, it isn't. The Gospels are placed only decades after the events while the accounts of Alexander the Great are placed centuries after the fact. Decades are obviously shorter than centuries, so what's the problem? If this is the sole criterion we're using the Gospels would actually be even more reliable than the accounts of Alexander the Great. And are you really saying that we have no archaeological evidence for Jesus? You'd be wrong. Are you saying that we don't have any events that would be inexplicable except in light of Jesus' existence? You'd also be wrong.

And the existence of Jesus is certain. The existence of Jesus is certain among serious intellectuals, including the society of biblical scholarship.

The existence of WinePusher isn't even certain, let alone the existence of Jesus. Epistemically, very few things rise to the level of certainty. What you mean is that the existence of Jesus is highly likely.

When I say certain, I am not speaking in philosophical terms. I am speaking in ancient historical terms. In historical terms, the existence of Jesus is as certain as the existence of George Washington or Adolf Hitler.

To that, I'll reiterate my earlier position of agnosticism: there simply isn't enough evidence to establish that Jesus' existence is more likely than his nonexistence. My position will not change until evidence can be produced that provides support for either the factualist or the mythicist positions.

Well you're simply wrong on that. There is an abundance of evidence that has convinced many scholars who have spent years studying this issue.

Haven, I provided links to nonbiased sources (excluding William Lane Craig) in order to substantiate all these facts. No offense, but I do not consider you more authoritative than the sources I cite.

You're right that Dr. Craig, who is essentially a traveling evangelical preacher, is far from an unbiased source. You're also right that Biblical scholars are more authoritative in their fields than I, however, I don't feel these scholars' findings provide enough evidence to support the historicity of Jesus (keep in mind I am NOT a mythicist, I am agnostic as to the existence of Jesus).

Again, we're trying to be intellectually honest here right? William Lane Craig is very biased and has an agenda he's trying to advance. Similarly, your appeals to John Dominic Crossan and Robert Price and Richard Carrier are no better because they are the same as, if not worse than, William Lane Craig. Does this have any impact on the arguments they're making? Maybe, I would say to a certain extent.

Perhaps it is in dispute among atheists on the internet, but it is not in dispute among scholars in real life. The videos I linked with Bart Ehrman prove my point.

Price and Carrier aren't scholars? The fact that you disagree with them doesn't mean they aren't scholars.

Uh the same can be said about the many certified scientists that oppose evolution. Obviously Price and Carrier are scholars, but their views are not consistent with the mainstream and are untenable.

This is a very weak objection in light of all the evidence we have. The most persuasive fact, pointed out by William Lane Craig, is that Jewish polemic actually presupposed an empty tomb. Additionally, the Roman governor overseeing the death of Jesus was Pilate, and if you remember Pilate was extremely sympathetic with Jesus' situation and was reluctant to have him crucified. Taking this information into account, it is reasonable to believe that Pilate would have allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus and have it buried.

The Jewish polemic is found only in the gospels, as is the Pilate sympathy story, and the accuracy of the gospels themselves are what is up for discussion. To assert that this polemic provides support for the Christian account, when it itself comes from the Christian account, is question-begging.

This isn't a very good argument. You are doing the same thing Christian fundamentalists do. In their minds, if the Bible says something then it must automatically be true. In your mind, if the Bible says something then it must automatically be false. What reason is there to discount the Jewish polemic and the story of Pontious Pilate? The only reason you have offered is because the Bible says so, therefore it must be false. That isn't a valid reason.

You don't get to assume 90% of your worldview and then chide skeptics for not limiting their debates to the other 10%.

I'm not assuming anything. I backed up everything I said in the topic with links from reputable sources. So far all you've done is say that you're not convinced. We all have our personal biases, and I'm sure you're no different. Facts are objective while our acceptance of facts is subjective. Obviously it would be difficult for a young earth creationist, born and raised in a fundamentalist household, to accept to fact of 'macro'evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that 'macro'evolution is real.

You can't just assert a head start. Everything about the Christian religion must be supported by empirical evidence, and, unfortunately for you, your "facts" are not. The evidence for Jesus is flimsy at best, the notion of fine-tuning is incoherent, the universe was not "created" from nothing, and it is unlikely that there was an empty tomb.

My sources say otherwise. The scientists I cite say otherwise and the biblical scholars and historians I cite say otherwise.

I also said nontheist. You are a nontheist right? You do not identify with any forms of theism?

I'm an apatheist: I don't care whether or not gods exist, as it is obvious that such beings either do not exist or have no impact on observable reality or human society, and therefore the existence of such beings has little intellectual or practical impact upon individuals' lives. Whether or not one or more gods exist, life will go on as it always has. There are far more pressing intellectual matters for scholars to study, and far more vital practical matters for people to address.

I disagree vehemently. The existence of God is a subject matter that many people throughout the history of humanity have devoted their lives to studying. It is a very interesting question that probably deserves even more attention than its currently getting. The question of God's existence gets right down to the core of our very existence, and many religions throughout the world have changed billions of lives (some for the better, some for the worse).

[Haven]

Haven, I've consolidated your two posts into one big post here. I've edited out some quotations that I feel have already been sufficiently addressed.

Thanks. I'll be doing the same with this post.

You see, I don't think this is a sincere position to take considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that is available.

We don't have "an overwhelming amount of evidence" for the existence of Jesus. The only evidence for his existence -- the only evidence for the existence of Jesus -- is anonymous magic-laced documents written by evangelists decades after Jesus' alleged execution. This is hardly "overwhelming evidence," unless you also consider the anonymous and magic-packed King Arthur myths evidence for Arthur's historicity.

All other textual evidence you / your sources cite supports the existence of early Christians, but not Jesus himself.

I don't dispute that there were Christians in the first century; there is plenty of evidence to support that. This does not mean, however, that a literal Christ figure is necessary to explain the emergence of Christianity (unless, of course, you feel that a historical Xenu is necessary to explain the rise of Scientology or a historical Moroni is necessary to explain the rise of Mormonism).

Jesus could just as easily been the invention of Paul, the Essenes, the writer of Q, or some other first-century (group of) Hellenized Jew(s), in the same way that Xenu was the invention of L. Ron Hubbard or Moroni was the invention of Joseph Smith. To claim otherwise is to engage in the fallacy of special pleading.

How can you possibly be an agnostic regarding the existence of Jesus when the vast majority of biblical scholars have suggested otherwise? Is what they say completely without any merit?

This is something I've noticed a lot in your post on this thread -- the appeal to authority fallacy. A claim is not true because someone who is considered an authority believes it. I know that my views of Jesus' historicity are at variance with those of many scholars, but I'm willing to stand by my opinion because I feel it's sound. It's possible for the (mostly theist) scholarly community to be wrong about the Jesus question. I have no problem with going against the scholarly majority. The evidence, and the evidence alone, should be the arbiter of truth.

You seem to be using a type of evidentiary standard that is not employed in biblical scholarship and ancient history. What type of physical evidence would satisfy you?

Any one of these would convince me: an actual body verified as that of Jesus, a verifiable tomb linked to Jesus, other relics reliably linked to Jesus, documents written by Jesus, or contemporaneous secular (preferably Roman) sources testifying to Jesus' existence (NOT the existence of Christians, but the existence of Jesus). Anonymous magic-laced documents written decades after the alleged events by evangelists dedicated to winning converts aren't enough.

If this standard of evidence is too high for Biblical scholarship, then perhaps the discipline should raise its bar of proof.

We have multiple, independent attestation for Jesus of Nazareth.

No we don't. The Synoptics aren't independent, John is a late source, full of legendary accretion, written by someone who never met Jesus, Paul never met Jesus (and so can't attest to his existence), Peter never left behind any documents (the books labeled with his name in the Bible can't be reliably linked to him), and James' epistle was likely pseudonymous as well (and even if it was written by him, he was a believer who may have had a reason to fabricate a connection with Jesus). The secular sources mentioning Christianity either do not mention Jesus directly or get their information on Jesus from believing Christians, eliminating them from consideration as independent attesting sources. This mythical "multiple independent attestation" so loved by Christians just does not exist.

And secondly, we analyze the circumstances surrounding the person in question to determine whether their nonexistence is a real possibility (for example, WWII would be impossible if Hitler weren't real). It would be impossible to explain the widespread movement of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in the first and second century if Jesus wasn't real.

That's not true at all. Religious movements with non-existent central figures start all the time (such as the aforementioned Mormonism with Moroni and Scientology with Xenu). The real catalyst for the growth of Christianity was not Jesus, but Paul, just like the spark for the growth of Mormonism was Joseph Smith, not the angel Moroni. It was Paul, not Jesus, who spread the religion across Western Asia and Southern Europe, and it was Paul who established most of the central doctrine for the religion; a similar process occurred with Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.

As I said, portions of the Gospels are appear to be interdependent while other portions appears to be independent.

I don't dispute this, but, on the whole, the gospels are not independent.

Ehrman not only cites the Gospels for Jesus' existence, but also Paul along with Peter and James.

Paul's writings are no more evidence for Jesus' than L. Ron Hubbard's are for Xenu. Paul never met Jesus, and so can't attest to his existence. "Peter" and "James" were likely pseudonymous writings by evangelists; hardly reliable documents.

And then of course there are references by Jewish and Roman sources in the second century.

These (written nearly a century after Jesus' alleged death) only attest to the existence of Christians, not Jesus himself. No one is disputing the existence of the early Church. The only thing in dispute is the existence of Jesus, and no one -- not you, not Dr. Ehrman, not anyone else -- has provided sufficient evidence for his historicity.

So what is the evidence against Jesus? If there is no evidence against Jesus' existence then you have no valid point.

Sure:

• There are a number of ancient myths with striking parallels to the Jesus story.
  The Essenes described (100 years before Jesus' alleged birth) a "teacher of righteousness" that fits the description of Jesus.
  There are no writings from Jesus. Certainly a teacher of his magnitude would have produced his own writings.

This evidence, in my opinion, is not enough to convince me that Jesus did not exist. However, the evidence you (and your sources) provided is not enough to convince me that he did exist. The most rational conclusion, given the situation, is to take a position of agnosticism.

And are you really saying that we have no archaeological evidence for Jesus? You'd be wrong. Are you saying that we don't have any events that would be inexplicable except in light of Jesus' existence? You'd also be wrong.

That archeological find is simply evidence that Christians existed, and the emergence of the faith is explainable without a historical Jesus, as I explained above.

When I say certain, I am not speaking in philosophical terms. I am speaking in ancient historical terms. In historical terms, the existence of Jesus is as certain as the existence of George Washington or Adolf Hitler.

We have writings and a physical body from George Washington. We have photographs, recordings, writings, and a body from Adolf Hitler. We have nothing from Jesus -- nothing directly establishing his existence. All we have are Paul's writings and anonymous documents written by evangelists.

Again, we're trying to be intellectually honest here right? William Lane Craig is very biased and has an agenda he's trying to advance. Similarly, your appeals to John Dominic Crossan and Robert Price and Richard Carrier are no better because they are the same as, if not worse than, William Lane Craig. Does this have any impact on the arguments they're making? Maybe, I would say to a certain extent.

J.D. Crossan is a Catholic who has no motive to oppose a historical Jesus or an empty tomb (he actually accepts a historical Jesus). Marcus Borg (who rejects an empty tomb) is also a Christian.

This isn't a very good argument. You are doing the same thing Christian fundamentalists do. In their minds, if the Bible says something then it must automatically be true. In your mind, if the Bible says something then it must automatically be false. What reason is there to discount the Jewish polemic and the story of Pontious Pilate? The only reason you have offered is because the Bible says so, therefore it must be false. That isn't a valid reason.

I've offered numerous reasons (bias, anonymity, lack of support by external sources, political motive, fantastic claims) why the Biblical accounts are not reliable. I'm not simply dismissing them because I don't like the Bible.

[FarWanderer]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

Which means it didn't begin to exist. Verbs attached to "nothing" are events that did not happen. Unless by "nothing" you really mean something (like in the case of Lawrance Krauss).

I don't understand why theists insist on creation ex nihilo. Ex deo creation at least is logically coherent.

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

Yes, life's needs and the universe's characteristics are very much in tune with one another.

However, I think that positing an omnipotent entity as a "fine-tuner" doesn't ammount to an explanation, because it leads us to the question as to why fine-tuning would be necessary in the first place.

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

A man named Jesus probably existed, and probably was a religious leader of some sort. I'm not entirely certain, though. 90%, or so.

But it's not that important to me.

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

I'm a lot more skeptical of this one, because it tries to establish magic. Magic that always seems to happen where impartial observers aren't.

I will always disbelieve claims of magic (aka miracles).

But again, I don't find it a compelling argument for Christianity even if true. Even if a bronze aged carpenter rose from the dead, it only informs me that resurrection is possible- not that there exists an omnipotent personal entity watching over us.

[dianaiad]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing[/color]

I'm not aware of any non-theist, except Richard Carrier, who claims this. The vast majority of non-theists, myself included, stick with the intellectually honest position that we simply do not know what, if anything, caused the universe to begin to exist (if it did indeed begin to exist).

The intellectually honest position is that the universe began to exist out of nothing. That much we do know for certain. What is unclear is what caused the universe to begin to exist. Christians say God, nonbelievers like Lawrence Krauss appeal to quantum mechanics.

Just as a point of clarification (and I hate to do this right now, because I"m going to disappear for a few days and, though I'll be able to read your response, I might not be able to respond in kind)....doesn't the Big Bang theory posit that the universe began, not out of 'nothing,' but out of a 'singularity?' It is my understanding that this singularity was very much "something,' as in, everything packed down into a teeny weeny incredibly small space. Our universe began as an explosion of that singularity.

For the universe to appear out of nothing, it would have simply...appeared. All over. However, it began at a specific 'place,' and expanded out from there. It still id expanding, in every possible direction. Even if there was 'nothing' at that place and beginning of time, there was the place and beginning of time, yes? That's 'something,' not 'nothing...'


But don't mind me. I don't happen to believe in creation ex nihilo. Call it a quirk.

[Goat]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

Which means it didn't begin to exist. Verbs attached to "nothing" are events that did not happen. Unless by "nothing" you really mean something (like in the case of Lawrance Krauss).

I don't understand why theists insist on creation ex nihilo. Ex deo creation at least is logically coherent.

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

Yes, life's needs and the universe's characteristics are very much in tune with one another.

However, I think that positing an omnipotent entity as a "fine-tuner" doesn't ammount to an explanation, because it leads us to the question as to why fine-tuning would be necessary in the first place.

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

A man named Jesus probably existed, and probably was a religious leader of some sort. I'm not entirely certain, though. 90%, or so.

But it's not that important to me.

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

I'm a lot more skeptical of this one, because it tries to establish magic. Magic that always seems to happen where impartial observers aren't.

I will always disbelieve claims of magic (aka miracles).

But again, I don't find it a compelling argument for Christianity even if true. Even if a bronze aged carpenter rose from the dead, it only informs me that resurrection is possible- not that there exists an omnipotent personal entity watching over us.

I don't see the evidence that 1) there was a tomb to being with and 2) Jesus rose from it. I find that the historical record for the Gospel Jesus to be corrupted by fraud and forgery. If there was a 'historical Jesus', why so much fake trying to prove there was?