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]

No, I'm talking specifically about New Testament scholars. Bart Ehrman along with the late Raymond E. Brown were accomplished historians of the ancient world. I also cited the Jesus seminar, which is not comprised of conservative Christian religious scholars, and how they completely refute your claims about the New Testament.

Bart Ehrman has a three-year diploma from Moody Bible Institute. He earned a BA from Wheaton College, a private Christian liberal arts school. He also has his Masters in Divinity and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Raymond E. Brown was a reverend and priest, who also only studied theology at religious schools.

They're not historians. True modern-day historians are secular.

Have you actually read anything written by Bart Ehrman or Raymond E. Brown? If you're actually interested in their research, I would suggest starting with Bart Ehrmans New Testament text and Raymond E. Brown's New Testament text. Read these books and you'll realize that biblical scholarship is essentially synonymous with the field of ancient history. Biblical scholars like Ehrman and Brown are ancient historians, ipso facto. New Testament studies curriculums are heavily based in ancient history, and seminaries like Princeton Theological Seminary are rooted in secular ancient historical studies. This is true for almost all religious studies department that specialize in biblical studies, the curriculum focuses on applying critical, exegetical ancient historical methods to the Bible.

So to put it shortly, you're wrong. Bart Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown are historians.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Well, in my mind, that the body of Jesus itself got up and left the tomb is something that could be evidenced in theory (as opposed to evidence of an omnipotent being- I think that's impossible even in principle). It'd be quite reasonable to believe the resurrection event occurred if, say, we documented several instances like it in laboratory conditions. The problem is that such evidence would itself establish regularity, and Jesus's resurrection would cease to be any more (or less) a miracle than naturally occurring phenomena, like gravity.

This is ultimately what Hume was getting at, I think. Evidence that Jesus revived is possible. Evidence that Jesus revived miraculously is not.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Well, in my mind, that the body of Jesus itself got up and left the tomb is something that could be evidenced in theory (as opposed to evidence of an omnipotent being- I think that's impossible even in principle). It'd be quite reasonable to believe the resurrection event occurred if, say, we documented several instances like it in laboratory conditions. The problem is that such evidence would itself establish regularity, and Jesus's resurrection would cease to be any more (or less) a miracle than naturally occurring phenomena, like gravity.

This is ultimately what Hume was getting at, I think. Evidence that Jesus revived is possible. Evidence that Jesus revived miraculously is not.

In my own belief system, that's not exactly a problem; we don't happen to think that there is such a thing as a 'supernatural' miracle; just natural ones we don't know the laws for yet.

[Ooberman]

No, I'm talking specifically about New Testament scholars. Bart Ehrman along with the late Raymond E. Brown were accomplished historians of the ancient world. I also cited the Jesus seminar, which is not comprised of conservative Christian religious scholars, and how they completely refute your claims about the New Testament.

Bart Ehrman has a three-year diploma from Moody Bible Institute. He earned a BA from Wheaton College, a private Christian liberal arts school. He also has his Masters in Divinity and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Raymond E. Brown was a reverend and priest, who also only studied theology at religious schools.

They're not historians. True modern-day historians are secular.

Have you actually read anything written by Bart Ehrman or Raymond E. Brown? If you're actually interested in their research, I would suggest starting with Bart Ehrmans New Testament text and Raymond E. Brown's New Testament text. Read these books and you'll realize that biblical scholarship is essentially synonymous with the field of ancient history. Biblical scholars like Ehrman and Brown are ancient historians, ipso facto. New Testament studies curriculums are heavily based in ancient history, and seminaries like Princeton Theological Seminary are rooted in secular ancient historical studies. This is true for almost all religious studies department that specialize in biblical studies, the curriculum focuses on applying critical, exegetical ancient historical methods to the Bible.

So to put it shortly, you're wrong. Bart Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown are historians.

While I agree with winepusher they are historians, I also agree in spirit that, generally, Biblical historians are low on the totem pole of scholars.

Anyone investigating ghosts, gods and goblins as an adult deserves some askance glances. Ehrman comes from a background as an Evangelical who gave up his faith after researching the Bible.

However, he is also criticized for taking the Bible as too reliable. He feels it's a good historical record, whereas most scholars don't think so.


There is a rhetorical trick Apologists commit. (WLC is famous for it in his debates)

They'll say things like "90% of Bible Scholars say...", and then it turns out they mean "Bible Believing scholars". For example, there is no doubt that 90% of Biblical Scholars in seminaries believe the Bible is an important historical document...

Of course! They wouldn't admit to studying an unimportant document.

But, if you ask 90% of historians about the Bible as a historical document, they will dismiss it as one of millions of documents, and nothing particularly special.

So, when you hear an apologist regurgitate "A majority of Biblical Scholars accept these 4 facts of the resurrection" you have to realize the trick - they mean Christian Scholars.

Then they need to flip the argument, they use "Bible Critics".

So, the arguments look a little like this.

"Did you know 90% of Bible critics accept that Jesus existed? Further, 90% of Bible scholars accept Jesus was real and came back from the dead."

They shift from 'scholars' to 'critics' depending on their argument, but it's said in a way that the listener, if not aware fo the trick, thinks that 90% of all scholars beleive these things.



Here is a better write up on this dishonest tactic:

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/06/ ... followers/

Youll never hear Craig say that very few scholars doubt the empty tomb. Thats because that claim is easily disproven. Indeed, some of Craigs fellow apologists are quite open about the fact that many scholars reject it (see for example pp. 461-462 of Mike Liconas new book). So instead, Craig makes slightly vaguer claims about majority opinions and what scholarship says, claims which he never has much support for, but which at least cant be immediately refuted. At the same time, he carefully avoids mentioning that there are any scholars who disagree, leaving his audience to assume there arent any.

Similarly, when Craig takes all the major details of the Biblical story of and calls them his four facts, the word facts there is a lie. Normally in a debate facts refer to things that are easily proven and can be agreed upon by all. But theres no proof for any of those facts, no evidence for them beyond the word of the Biblical authors, who may have been misinformed or lying. But by calling them facts over and over again, Craig gives the impression that theyre uncontroversial. And if called on it, he can defend himself by quibbling about the meaning of the word fact.

And Craig even tries to hide the fact that hes replying on the Bible as the only evidence for his claims. Hell cite early Jewish polemic (i.e. what the Bible says the Jews said) or the pre-Markan passion narrative (i.e. something some people are guessing existed based on reading the Bible). He knows hed loose a debate on the Bibles reliability, so he insists its reliability is irrelevant. If he can avoid the discussion entirely, many members of his audience will continue to take the Bibles reliability for granted, especially once theyve been told all the important things are facts.

[The Me's]

2--They were not recorded decades after the fact

How do you #2 is a fact if you aren't allowed to read facts into evidence?

The whole purpose evidence has for us is to derive facts from.

So, I don't think anyone knows what you're talking about.[/quote]

If you're not allowed to read facts into evidence, it also follows that you're not allowed to ignore evidence you don't like. Same rule, different angle.

The gospel writers identify themselves and claim to have been eye-witnesses.

You're not allowed to say otherwise without evidence, therefore #2 is true until you have evidence otherwise.

Since you live 2000 years after the fact, you have no basis to make declarations of any kind about the gospels. You can only believe what they say or not believe.

[Joab]

The gospel writers identify themselves and claim to have been eye-witnesses.

Citations absolutely needed.

[The Me's]

Citations absolutely needed.

No, they're not "absolutely needed" if you've read the gospels. You'd already know about them.

It's established that the writers of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Citations are needed if you dispute.

Yes, folks, as I've said, you can believe what you want. You have the luxury of freedom. But you can't just make up your own facts. People who quote the Bible are quoting a legitimate historical source. People who dispute the Bible have a burden of proof. You don't get a free ride.

[Joab]

Citations absolutely needed.

No, they're not "absolutely needed" if you've read the gospels. You'd already know about them.

It's established that the writers of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Citations are needed if you dispute.

Yes, folks, as I've said, you can believe what you want. You have the luxury of freedom. But you can't just make up your own facts. People who quote the Bible are quoting a legitimate historical source. People who dispute the Bible have a burden of proof. You don't get a free ride.

I will ask you again for the second time to support this claim with evidence.

The gospel writers identify themselves and claim to have been eye-witnesses.

On this forum, apparently, if you refuse three times to produce evidence of your claim then a sanction is imposed. Please keep that in mind.

[The Me's]

On this forum, apparently, if you refuse three times to produce evidence of your claim then a sanction is imposed. Please keep that in mind.

I've asked you to provide evidence that the gospel writers were NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and you've refused to provide it.

It's useless to debate with people who make demands that they're not willing to meet themselves.

I'll go first:

John identified himself here:
"I am that disciple. I saw these events and have recorded them." (John 21:24, TLB)

Now it's your turn. Supply your evidence if you want your demands for me to do so to be taken seriously.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 155:

...
The gospel writers identify themselves and claim to have been eye-witnesses.

You're not allowed to say otherwise without evidence, therefore #2 is true until you have evidence otherwise.

If someone told you they was made of jelly, would you rush around to make you some biscuits?

Since you live 2000 years after the fact, you have no basis to make declarations of any kind about the gospels. You can only believe what they say or not believe.

I'll take not,