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 world’s 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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 119:

If you're:

1--Unwilling to back up your claims, and

If you're uwilling to tell me what claim it is I've made that you seek to challenge, how on God's green earth am I to know what needs it the backing of the up?

2--Unwilling to accept evidence...

Please note, I do not say that someone lacks evidence when they present evidence. I may carry on about their faulty conclusions about it, but I don't say they ain't presented it. If you say the Bible's your evidence, well then, there we go. I'll just question your concludings there 'bout.

You ain't a moderator, nor do you get to make the rules up as we go along.

I'm NOT required to support claims I don't present.

M'iay OTNAY equiredray otay upportsay aimsclay Iay on'tday resentpay.

Thems the only ways I know how to tell it.

Until you challenge a claim I make, I'm not beholden to support something I don't know what the heck it is I'm s'posed to be supporting.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

You and I can't have a discussion.

You ain't the first one that prefers to ignore my challenges, and I wouldn't bet on ya being the last.

[FarWanderer]

I sincerely doubt that you need any more evidence than you already have that Julius Caesar invade Gaul. His own written account is all we have. For Jesus, we have 4 sources and many, many indirect sources.

We'd need a lot more evidence if his written account involved a magic ring which made him invisible.

To quote a good quote that has been quoted to death: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 120 by Ooberman]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

You're welcome to believe or not believe, but you're going to have trouble everything you try to deny reality. Just my opinion.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 120 by Ooberman]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

You're welcome to believe or not believe, but you're going to have trouble everything you try to deny reality. Just my opinion.

You have claimed that Christians who 'challenge the Bible' are 'devoid of understanding of the rules of evidence.' This is a clumsy phrase, but it is your own.

Since you have set up an 'understanding of the Rules of Evidence' as a standard for debating the issue, perhaps you can demonstrate how the 'Rules of Evidence' would allow you to introduced alleged 'eye witness' accounts from anonymous "witnesses" who recorded the supposed events decades after they happened, and in most cases admit their accounts are hearsay. Go ahead. Show us how the ER's allow you to introduce such hearsay and gossip as 'evidence.'

[The Me's]

You have claimed that Christians who 'challenge the Bible' are 'devoid of understanding of the rules of evidence.' This is a clumsy phrase, but it is your own.

No, it's clumsy because you misquoted me.

I claim that "in my experience, most PEOPLE who challenge the Bible are devoid of knowledge of the rules of evidence".

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable, but here it is:

The Bible contains four sources for eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life.
Eye-witness accounts qualify as primary sources of historical evidence (Luke is secondary).

According to the rules of evidence, you're going to need a primary source to demonstrate that they gospels are something other than what they claim.

You can't just say they are and hope we take you seriously.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 123 by The Me's]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

What "eye witness accounts" are you referring to?

[The Me's]

Since you have set up an 'understanding of the Rules of Evidence' as a standard for debating the issue, perhaps you can demonstrate how the 'Rules of Evidence' would allow you to introduced alleged 'eye witness' accounts from anonymous "witnesses" who recorded the supposed events decades after they happened, and in most cases admit their accounts are hearsay. Go ahead. Show us how the ER's allow you to introduce such hearsay and gossip as 'evidence.'

1--The witnesses are not anonymous
2--They were not recorded decades after the fact
3--Rules of evidence state that you have no authority to read facts into evidence

You're welcome to disbelieve. You are not welcome to fabricate reality that you're more comfortable with.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 112 by higgy1911]

I'm sorry, but medical science has NEVER found evidence contradicting Jesus' resurrection.

Nor has anyone else.

'Medical science' has 'NEVER' found evidence supporting the resurrection, talking asses, flying horses or any of the delusional claims you and other religionists make.

[FarWanderer]

Since you have set up an 'understanding of the Rules of Evidence' as a standard for debating the issue, perhaps you can demonstrate how the 'Rules of Evidence' would allow you to introduced alleged 'eye witness' accounts from anonymous "witnesses" who recorded the supposed events decades after they happened, and in most cases admit their accounts are hearsay. Go ahead. Show us how the ER's allow you to introduce such hearsay and gossip as 'evidence.'

1--The witnesses are not anonymous
2--They were not recorded decades after the fact
3--Rules of evidence state that you have no authority to read facts into evidence

You're welcome to disbelieve. You are not welcome to fabricate reality that you're more comfortable with.

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.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 123 by The Me's]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

What "eye witness accounts" are you referring to?

Matthew, Mark and John were eye-witnesses.
Luke interviewed eye-witnesses.

(Actually, all four of them likely relied on accounts that were written while Jesus was still alive. There is literally no disagreement whatsoever between the four different sources. It's not just impossible, it's really boneheaded to think that they were written from memory decades after the fact. I'm surprised any time I see scholars try to pass this off as a legitimate argument.)