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?

[Star]

And then there are those few others like WinePusher, who choose to stay and fight the good fight, convinced that since they know for a fact that they are on the side of right they must ultimately prevail. Unfortunately for WinePusher and the others, they are still locked into the same ancient child-like system of mythology that simply cannot and does not hold up to any modern analysis of it. As a result they tend to flit from string to string, laying down their challenges (their "fun facts") and then abruptly moving on when confronted by counter arguments which effectively shreds their own, and for which they have no real means to overcome. At least they are consistent in that they do exhibit the strength of their convictions, something which the majority of believers on this forum completely fail to do. So kudos to them for that at least. But WinePusher, if you are reading this, we answered each one of your "facts" thoroughly. If you have no further comment then we can only conclude that our rebuttal to your "facts" were well taken by you, and that you have nothing further to say because there is nothing further you CAN say. If debate is a form of combat, then you have fled the field of battle and the day is ours. Means you lose. Again.

LOL oh gosh, I think you're taking this internet forum way to seriously. Apparently you see this forum as some type of war battle between theists and atheists for the fate of the world. I don't, I see this forum for what it is. An internet forum where people can come and go as they please. Unlike a lot of people here, I don't spend my entire life on the internet. I have a real life, and I have my priorities straight. I have a family, I have friends, I have a job, I go to school, I have other hobbies other than this forum, I have a REAL life. And when there's a lot of stuff going on in the real world, I'm going to have to cut back on the amount of time I spend on the internet world.

Apparently this isn't true for you. What a shame . When it comes to my list of priorities, well...you actually don't even appear on it at all. But the forum itself ranks very low, and this forum will always come last. Please, try to keep all of this in mind before you arrogantly declare yourself the victor. It's just the internet bro, lighten up

I took TOTN's "battle field" statement as metaphorical.

In light of your post, I have a couple questions for you. I hope you have the time in your busy "real life" to answer, "unlike a lot of people here".

1) Why do you start fights you can't finish?

2) How have you managed to accumulate nearly 3300 posts in four years? That's significantly less than the member you directed these comments towards.

3) If that was taking the Internet "too seriously", why are you a member of the Militant Debater group? The description says it's "for all debaters who portray a combative character...".

4) If this board means so much less to you than "a lot of the people here", then why you do you donate/support?

[WinePusher]

1) Why do you start fights you can't finish?

What fight? You're just like Tired of the Nonsense. Apparently you see this forum as some war and you're a 'fighter' for the atheists. I'm not fighting with anyone, I'm debating.

2) How have you managed to accumulate nearly 3300 posts in four years?

By posting in threads? What is the point of these asinine questions?

3) If that was taking the Internet "too seriously", why are you a member of the Militant Debater group? The description says it's "for all debaters who portray a combative character...".

Cause I relate with the description. I don't tend to be polite and cordial in my posts, but does that mean I see this forum as a battlefield? Do I consider myself a fighter in the war between theists and atheists like you and Tired of the Nonsense do? No. I stopped playing make believe a long time ago.

4) If this board means so much less to you than "a lot of the people here", then why you do you donate/support?

I read somewhere that otseng pays $100 a month for the forum, and at the time I read some posts encouraging users to donate. I certainly don't worship this forum and spend every waking minute like a lot of people do, but I do enjoy it and appreciate the time, effort and money otseng spends on it and my contribution was a way to help out.

Anyways, are you done derailing the topic? Were you actually going to address the topic or just continue Tired of the Nonsense's little invective? Unless you have something substantive to say I don't feel comfortable wasting any more of my time on you.

[WinePusher]

In light of your post, I have a couple questions for you. I hope you have the time in your busy "real life" to answer, "unlike a lot of people here".

Well, using Tired of the Nonsense's logic and terminology, you yourself are a 'loser' cause you failed to respond to my post 110 in the fine tuning thread. Do I agree with Tired of the Nonsense about you being a 'loser?' No, you probably had other things to do. Do I think I won the argument because you failed to respond? No, because debate isn't about winning and losing. If you don't understand yet, my points are:

1) This isn't a battle or a war. It's an internet forum to share and exchange ideas.
2) People are not obligated to respond to certain posts or stay on the forum permanently.
3) Debate isn't about winning and losing. There are no winners and losers in a debate.
4) Many debaters on here, both theist and atheist, come and go.

Edit:

5) People here have REAL lives (at least some of us do). Please take this into consideration before going on long victory speeches about how you've won the war.

[Star]

Who said anything about post counts? You're clearly upset cause I haven't responded to your posts in this thread and I'm simply explaining why. I have a real life, and real life comes first before internet life. Why can't you understand this? A lot of us don't have the luxury to spend our every waking breath on this forum. This means that you won't get responses and rebuttals as quickly as you would like. Deal with it.

The problem is you have implied that you are unique in that you have a "real life" and can't put in as much time and effort as we can. Rate of posts (post count over time), as well as overall length of posts, are sufficient enough indicators of roughly how much time and effort a member is putting in. So, who are you to talk about "most" people here not having "real lives" when by these metrics you are no different?

I cannot stress this enough: "If you have to insist youve won an internet argument, youve probably lost badly."

Except, it was demonstrated here, that the statements in your OP are either patently false, or fallacious. Your "facts" are not facts. You generalized "non-theists" in your thread title and attributed arguments to them most of them have never made, which are stawmen. Surely, when you start such an inflammatory thread, then inflame even more by accusing "most' people here of not having "real lives" because they spend too much time here, what do you expect?

[WinePusher]

Who said anything about post counts? You're clearly upset cause I haven't responded to your posts in this thread and I'm simply explaining why. I have a real life, and real life comes first before internet life. Why can't you understand this? A lot of us don't have the luxury to spend our every waking breath on this forum. This means that you won't get responses and rebuttals as quickly as you would like. Deal with it.

The problem is you have implied that you are unique in that you have a "real life" and can't put in as much time and effort as we can. Rate of posts (post count over time), as well as overall length of posts, are sufficient enough indicators of roughly how much time and effort a member is putting in. So, who are you to talk about "most" people here not having "real lives" when by these metrics you are no different?

I never implied that I'm the only one with a real life. Obviously there are others, but it doesn't seem to be that many. And it seems to be a problem mainly with the nontheist side. Tired of the Nonsense wasn't the first to start slinging around inflammatory statements about how debaters flee and abandon threads, I've seen other nontheists say the same. Anybody with a real life should know what I'm talking about. Sometimes real life gets busy. Can you understand that? When real life gets busy you have to cut back on internet life. Personally, sometimes my life is extremely hectic while other times it isn't, and when it isn't I have more time I can spend posting here (which I do enjoy doing btw).

I cannot stress this enough: "If you have to insist youve won an internet argument, youve probably lost badly."

Except, it was demonstrated here, that the statements in your OP are either patently false, or fallacious. Your "facts" are not facts. You generalized "non-theists" in your thread title and attributed arguments to them most of them have never made, which are stawmen. Surely, when you start such an inflammatory thread, then inflame even more by accusing "most' people here of not having "real lives" because they spend too much time here, what do you expect?

First you say that my facts are not facts, and then you say nontheists have never argued against them being facts. Do you even know what you're saying? And my point about having a real life was in response to Tired of the Nonsense's nonsense about him having won the war and how theists are all losers. You didn't consider that to be inflammatory at all?

And please, don't EVER lecture other people about being inflammatory. You really have no right to talk about civility since you called olavisjo an idiot.

[WinePusher]

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.

Perhaps. Creation ex nihilo is merely an extension of creation ex deo. Creation ex nihilo is a scientific fact while creation ex deo is not. Creation ex deo is an assumption that many theists, including myself, believe in but it cannot necessarily be proven while creation ex nihilo can. All we can say for certain is that creation ex materia is not a viable position to hold.

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 amount to an explanation, because it leads us to the question as to why fine-tuning would be necessary in the first place.

That is a question for a different topic. All we're trying to do here is to establish whether or not those four items listed in the topic are facts. The explanations for them are not relevant.

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.

Again, this isn't relevant. The question being asked is whether or not the tomb was empty. In my opinion it was. Does the fact of an empty tomb prove Jesus rose from the dead? Well, I would actually agree with you that it provides very weak evidence and that all natural explanations better explain the empty tomb than supernatural explanations. But, that doesn't change the fact that it was empty.

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

Do the 'facts' get more or less solid after this initial assumption that is mainly agreed to by theists?
Most theists think only one thing is eternal, their particular god. For reasons we don't need to speculate on they insist a speculative or imaginary X has existed forever with no beginning, yet they deny this quality to the universe that we not only know exists, but have every reason to believe always has.

From what I've seen you seem to be a pretty intellectually honest person yourself, Danmark. If we agree that 1) The universe began to exist out of nothing, 2) The universe is fine tuned for life, 3) Jesus existed and the New Testament is semi-reliable, and 4) the tomb Jesus was laid in was found empty then the 'fact' become less and less solid. After establishing these facts, all we have left is educated speculation and conjecture. I am not saying that these four facts prove Christian theism. All I'm saying is that it lends support to Christian theism, and I'll go even further to admit that this support is sometimes very weak at best. But, I would expect you to affirm these four items as facts since they have been documented by academic sources. If you pick up a physics textbook or a New Testament textbook, everything I've written in the topic will correlate with the content of those texts. If you disagree with the truth of these facts I would expect you to provide some academic sources of your own that say the opposite.

[Danmark]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

Do the 'facts' get more or less solid after this initial assumption that is mainly agreed to by theists?
Most theists think only one thing is eternal, their particular god. For reasons we don't need to speculate on they insist a speculative or imaginary X has existed forever with no beginning, yet they deny this quality to the universe that we not only know exists, but have every reason to believe always has.

From what I've seen you seem to be a pretty intellectually honest person yourself, Danmark. If we agree that 1) The universe began to exist out of nothing, 2) The universe is fine tuned for life, 3) Jesus existed and the New Testament is semi-reliable, and 4) the tomb Jesus was laid in was found empty then the 'fact' become less and less solid. After establishing these facts, all we have left is educated speculation and conjecture. I am not saying that these four facts prove Christian theism. All I'm saying is that it lends support to Christian theism, and I'll go even further to admit that this support is sometimes very weak at best. But, I would expect you to affirm these four items as facts since they have been documented by academic sources. If you pick up a physics textbook or a New Testament textbook, everything I've written in the topic will correlate with the content of those texts. If you disagree with the truth of these facts I would expect you to provide some academic sources of your own that say the opposite.

I appreciate the personal preamble [Thank you], but I addressed 1) and stated the opposite of what you write; my position is the universe 'has always been,' that it did not 'begin to exist out of nothing.' Even Krauss's book that has the title that appears to contradict my claim, says the same thing in that what physicists/cosmologists at his level call 'nothing' is actually 'something' and a far cry from what philosophers and laymen call nothing.

2) on the apparent 'fine tuning' of the universe, I have previously written on that subject in the subtopic bearing that name. I don't wish to repeat that effort except to add that the 'fine tuning' argument is just the old Leibnizian optimism Voltaire lampooned long ago, now dressed up in new clothes. I also offered my own parody about the universe being 'fine tuned' to make it possible to distill ethanol since it has a higher boiling point than the poisonous methanol and a lower boiling point than water.

Re: 3 and 4, I agree the New Testament may be 'semi-reliable' which is to say it is not reliable. The gospel accounts contradict themselves on the details of the empty tomb, and the emptiness of the tomb does not preclude the surreptitious removal of the body.

I agree the weight of authority among scholars suggest Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure, tho' I am open minded about this. My feeling is that he is a composite character based on several stories of multiple figures. I am greatly bothered by the almost total absence of 'authentic sounding' accounts of anything about his life until the final year or two. It seems to me that mythic elements have been interwoven into the narrative in an effort to supplement those early years.

On a person note, I agree that for me the person of Jesus remains a powerful figure and an inspiration who in some important ways is still 'real' to me. No matter what my intellect says, I confess that He still 'walks with me.' I believe in the 'Power of Myth' and myth or more, 'Jesus' is still a powerful influence in my life.

[WinePusher]

I've edited out your comments on fine tuning cause I feel like we've already beaten that topic to death in the other thread and it'll give me more time to focus on the other topics being raised here.

I appreciate the personal preamble [Thank you]

Yea sure, no problem. You're gonna need all the kind words you can get after the Broncos destroy the Seahawks.

but I addressed 1) and stated the opposite of what you write; my position is the universe 'has always been,' that it did not 'begin to exist out of nothing.' Even Krauss's book that has the title that appears to contradict my claim, says the same thing in that what physicists/cosmologists at his level call 'nothing' is actually 'something' and a far cry from what philosophers and laymen call nothing.

When I say nothing I am referring to a state of being where there is no space, time or matter (where there is no universe). You are suggesting creation ex materia (creation from pre-existing material) and modern physics has shown this position to be incorrect. There's no two ways about it. Modern physics has refuted this 'eternal universe' 'universe existing forever' claim. And remember, Lawrence Krauss is the atheist equivalent of William Lane Craig so I wouldn't base my entire argument on what he's written. Stephen Hawking (whom I have much more respect for) has also written plenty on this positive/negative energy relationship and my thoughts on this are as follows:

1. Physicists have virtually no understanding of how quantum mechanics work, so at this point Krauss' thesis concerning the cancellation of positive/negative energy is not coherent and untestable. Perhaps future scientific discoveries will vindicate Krauss.
2. Krauss' thesis has been criticized by many scientific philosophers due to the fact that the definition of nothingness he employs is fatally flawed. And this, of course, leads us to the philosophy vs. science debate where many scientists claim that philosophy is worthless and many philosophers claim that philosophy is a foundational intellectual and pragmatic pillar for science.

Re: 3 and 4, I agree the New Testament may be 'semi-reliable' which is to say it is not reliable. The gospel accounts contradict themselves on the details of the empty tomb, and the emptiness of the tomb does not preclude the surreptitious removal of the body.

Uh, when did semi-reliable=not reliable? And yes, the Gospels contradict themselves on minor details about the tomb. Such miniscule errors would be expected. But what you miss is that all the Gospels agree with each other that the tomb was empty. You would be able to completely destroy my case if one of the canonical Gospels claimed the tomb wasn't empty, but it doesn't. There aren't any major discrepancies in the narrative so you focus only on these tiny, insignificant discrepancies.

[otseng]

And then there are those few others like WinePusher, who choose to stay and fight the good fight, convinced that since they know for a fact that they are on the side of right they must ultimately prevail. Unfortunately for WinePusher and the others, they are still locked into the same ancient child-like system of mythology that simply cannot and does not hold up to any modern analysis of it. As a result they tend to flit from string to string, laying down their challenges (their "fun facts") and then abruptly moving on when confronted by counter arguments which effectively shreds their own, and for which they have no real means to overcome. At least they are consistent in that they do exhibit the strength of their convictions, something which the majority of believers on this forum completely fail to do. So kudos to them for that at least. But WinePusher, if you are reading this, we answered each one of your "facts" thoroughly. If you have no further comment then we can only conclude that our rebuttal to your "facts" were well taken by you, and that you have nothing further to say because there is nothing further you CAN say. If debate is a form of combat, then you have fled the field of battle and the day is ours. Means you lose. Again.

LOL oh gosh, I think you're taking this internet forum way to seriously. Apparently you see this forum as some type of war battle between theists and atheists for the fate of the world. I don't, I see this forum for what it is. An internet forum where people can come and go as they please. Unlike a lot of people here, I don't spend my entire life on the internet. I have a real life, and I have my priorities straight. I have a family, I have friends, I have a job, I go to school, I have other hobbies other than this forum, I have a REAL life. And when there's a lot of stuff going on in the real world, I'm going to have to cut back on the amount of time I spend on the internet world.

Apparently this isn't true for you. What a shame . When it comes to my list of priorities, well...you actually don't even appear on it at all. But the forum itself ranks very low, and this forum will always come last. Please, try to keep all of this in mind before you arrogantly declare yourself the victor. It's just the internet bro, lighten up

Moderator Comment

Both of you, please do not make personal comments about each other.

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.