IF...

[atheist buddy]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

First of all, is anybody confused at all about the fact that when somebody says "If X is true then Y is true", then Y hasn't been demonstrated to be true until X has been demonstrated to be true?

In other words, if somebody says "If God exists then donkeys can talk", then the belief in the possibility of talking donkeys hasn't become reasonable until we have extablished the existence of God, indipendently of the talking donkey.

By analogy, imagine somebody said "If Jenny was at Steve's neighborhood yesterday at noon, then it's possible she could have been the murderer who killed Steve in his house yesterday at noon". It doesn't become reasonable to say that Jenny could possibly have killed Steve, until we have etablished that she was in his neighborhood at that time.

If we cannot establish that she was in his neighborhood, we cannot use the notion that she as in his neighborhood to establish she was the murderer. Similarly, if we cannot establish that god exists, we cannot use the notion that he exists to establish that talking donkeys could be possible.

Secondly, if somebody were able to establish that a God capable of making donkeys talk or getting virgins pregnant existed (nobody has in the last 10,000 years), then, by the argument above, he would have only succeded in making a case for talking donkeys and virgin births being possible. Not in demonstrating that they actually happened.

The Jenny/Steve analogy still applies. If you somehow demonstrate that Jenny was in Steve's neighborhood when he was killed, then you've only demonstrated that it's possible that she killed him, you have not demonstrated that she actually killed him. You still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that she killed him. And you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that God actually caused a donkey to talk.

Lastly, think of the most outrageously absurd, patently impossible thing you can imagine. I dunno, that Bin Laden had the power to turn water into wine, or that Hitler resurrected German soldiers with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that Pontius Pilate was born of a Virgin. If a God who has the power to bend the laws of physics exists, then all of those things are possible, and no less so than the talking donkey or Jesus's virgin birth. An argument that demonstrates anything, actually demonstrates nothing.

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 80:

What I have attempted to do throughout this thread is to acknowledge that I understand there is reason involved in unbelief.
...

I can dig it. I prefer to consider folks' stuff in terms of conclusions, because of the problems in looking at it as "reason".

Is it "reason" to think Jesus rose from the dead? Not to me, but, I don't like the implications of saying "you lack reason". I prefer to say such as, "that's some faulty concluding".

...
I understand that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then it is not that I believe in myths, or fairy tales, rather I am believing a lie
...

A lie?

Could you not just say such as, "Well, I reckon he didn't, they just got that bit wrong", and just move on? Just maintain all other aspects of the belief, even supernatural claims and such?

Your angle here implies that you're so emotionally tied to your beliefs, that maybe your emotions guide your conclusions and skew the results thereof. No slur. No slur at all, especially in light of the full context of your well -ahem- reasoned post. I'm merely trying to offer sound analysis.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 80 by Realworldjack]

You've never acknowledged you had your facts woefully wrong about the date Genesis was written. Your beliefs appear to be based upon a faulty understanding of the very Bible that is the foundation of your belief system. You have yet to cite support for your contention Genesis was written "5000 years ago" which would have been 2000 years before the death of Moses. You have failed to answer the argument that New Testament writers tailored their claims to what had already been written (and still produced contradictory claims), yet you claim somehow that this is 'proof' of miracles and supernatural claims.

When one's basis for belief rests upon a misunderstanding of his own sources and a refusal to acknowledge that misunderstanding, or to review his facts, the conclusion I come to is that you believe because you believe and employ nothing but confirmation bias to continue those beliefs.

I have documented my own beliefs about the history of the Bible with citations to Bible websites that include conservative viewpoints. You have documented nothing.

It is for these reasons and others I've suggested in this thread that I believe there is no proper intellectual, logical, or historical basis for accepting the Judeo Christian God or the stories about 'him' as anything but mythological.

[Hatuey]

However, it is distressing when these very same Atheists, and unbelievers go on to state their opinion as if it were fact. An example is when some state things such as,
"the Bible is filled with myths, and fairy tales," as if this is a foregone conclusion when it is not.

The bottom line here is, I for one as a Christian, understand I cannot prove what it is I believe, however I do have reasons. Now let me ask you, can you prove what it is you believe? If you can prove what it is you believe you will do me a tremendous favor...

I agree that atheists should not state their opinions as fact. Nothing that cannot be verified as accurate and factual should be considered fact regardless of if the idea is liked or not by the person putting forth that idea.

The bible is filled with myths and fairy tales. This is a fact because of the definitions of those two words. If those myths and fairy tales happened to actually occur, that's a separate statement, but according to the literary definitions of "myth" and "fairy tale," the bible is filled with them both. (Consider: if one of Aesop's fairy tales actually occurred, would that have any bearing on the literary pattern of the narrative being that of a "fairy tale?" No, the fairy tales, whether or not they happened, are still fairy tales.)

People can't prove what they believe, they can only prove that they believe it to some degree. If a belief can be proved, it is no longer a belief, it is a fact held as evident. Nothing I believe can be proved, because it's a belief and not a fact. I believe I will have a great day tomorrow, and I firmly believe it, but I have no proof to offer you for that belief--it's just a belief, after all. The idea that I know are fact can be demonstrated by multiple methods--like the fact that evolution is the most sensible explanation for the way life exists on the planet.

[Realworldjack]

From Post 80:

What I have attempted to do throughout this thread is to acknowledge that I understand there is reason involved in unbelief.
...

I can dig it. I prefer to consider folks' stuff in terms of conclusions, because of the problems in looking at it as "reason".

Is it "reason" to think Jesus rose from the dead? Not to me, but, I don't like the implications of saying "you lack reason". I prefer to say such as, "that's some faulty concluding".

...
I understand that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then it is not that I believe in myths, or fairy tales, rather I am believing a lie
...

A lie?

Could you not just say such as, "Well, I reckon he didn't, they just got that bit wrong", and just move on? Just maintain all other aspects of the belief, even supernatural claims and such?

Your angle here implies that you're so emotionally tied to your beliefs, that maybe your emotions guide your conclusions and skew the results thereof. No slur. No slur at all, especially in light of the full context of your well -ahem- reasoned post. I'm merely trying to offer sound analysis.

I certainly appreciate your input, however the problem I see with your analysis is, the Apostles could not have possibly gotten things, "a bit wrong." Either they were telling of what they had truly witnessed, or they were flat out lying, and they would have known they were lying. I cannot see another option here.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Realworldjack]
'Preciate the response. Just wanted some data for us all to consider.

[Danmark]

I certainly appreciate your input, however the problem I see with your analysis is, the Apostles could not have possibly gotten things, "a bit wrong." Either they were telling of what they had truly witnessed, or they were flat out lying, and they would have known they were lying. I cannot see another option here.

[emphasis applied]

This is a famous false dilemma.

People frequently get their facts wrong without actually lying.

There are many reasons for people to get their facts wrong, particularly when they are merely repeating what others saw, and writing about those things 50 or more years later. None of the Gospel accounts involve events contemporaneous with the reporting.

We see this frequently in courtroom testimony, where people are honestly mistaken. We are not perfect recorders of what we observe. Wishful thinking, bias, confirmation bias are but a few of the factors at play. Magicians rely on the fact that humans do not see what they think they see.

Here on this forum we frequently see misstatements of fact. That does not mean the debaters are lying. They are merely misinformed. They frequently repeat what they've been told, not what they know. That is why it is important to backup arguments and the facts upon which they are based with citations to authority.

That is the point of Rule 5 of this forum.
"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim."

There is a helpful article on presenting evidence here.

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . the problem I see with your analysis is, the Apostles could not have possibly gotten things, "a bit wrong." Either they were telling of what they had truly witnessed, or they were flat out lying, and they would have known they were lying. I cannot see another option here.

RWJ, YOU got things "a bit wrong" if those to whom you refer as apostles are the gospel writers. Were you lying? Of course not (in my opinion) but rather made a mistake in what you wrote. Perhaps you made assumptions, jumped to conclusions, and/or took hearsay to be truthful and accurate.

Identity of bible writers is unknown to Christian scholars and theologians. The time they wrote is disputed but cannot be shown to have been within decades or generations of the events and conversations they describe. None of the writers can be shown to have personally witnessed anything of which they wrote. Paul/Saul admittedly did not know Jesus (except in a "vision", or hallucination, or whatever) or personally witness his words or deeds (thus everything he wrote about Jesus was hearsay).

It seems likely the "the apostles" wrote what they heard as "verbal tradition", folklore, legend, fable, myth, etc -- passed down from person to person for many years (perhaps as much as a century before they were recorded. Even at that, we do not have ANY of their original documents -- only copies of copies of copies that were variously translated, edited, revised, etc.

As all of us are aware, or should be, stories passed along verbally often change considerably over time and with repeated retelling. Thus, bible writings can be expected to likely be in error or contain error without anyone actually lying (other than perhaps Paul/Saul).

[Realworldjack]

.

. . . the problem I see with your analysis is, the Apostles could not have possibly gotten things, "a bit wrong." Either they were telling of what they had truly witnessed, or they were flat out lying, and they would have known they were lying. I cannot see another option here.

RWJ, YOU got things "a bit wrong" if those to whom you refer as apostles are the gospel writers. Were you lying? Of course not (in my opinion) but rather made a mistake in what you wrote. Perhaps you made assumptions, jumped to conclusions, and/or took hearsay to be truthful and accurate.

Identity of bible writers is unknown to Christian scholars and theologians. The time they wrote is disputed but cannot be shown to have been within decades or generations of the events and conversations they describe. None of the writers can be shown to have personally witnessed anything of which they wrote. Paul/Saul admittedly did not know Jesus (except in a "vision", or hallucination, or whatever) or personally witness his words or deeds (thus everything he wrote about Jesus was hearsay).

It seems likely the "the apostles" wrote what they heard as "verbal tradition", folklore, legend, fable, myth, etc -- passed down from person to person for many years (perhaps as much as a century before they were recorded. Even at that, we do not have ANY of their original documents -- only copies of copies of copies that were variously translated, edited, revised, etc.

As all of us are aware, or should be, stories passed along verbally often change considerably over time and with repeated retelling. Thus, bible writings can be expected to likely be in error or contain error without anyone actually lying (other than perhaps Paul/Saul).

I intend to respond to all of the above, but if you have noticed it takes me a while. This is because I am working a great number of hours at this time which leaves me little time here. I have decided to respond to this post first, because I believe it will be the easiest response, and be less involved. At any rate allow me to thank you all for the conversation, it gives me something to think on, during my long hours at work, which helps the time pass. You state above,

Identity of bible writers is unknown to Christian scholars and theologians.

This is a great example of what I described above which is, unbelievers, and Atheists, stating their opinion as fact. I believe it is pretty easily demonstrated that, Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him. With this being the case, there is at least reason to believe the original Apostles would have written down the events they claimed to have witnessed themselves. Two of the Gospels have been attributed to original Apostles, which would be, Matthew, and John. But it seems to me the real question involved here is, whether Biblical writers were simply mistaken, out right lying, or telling the truth? Well, I am sure there are other examples I could use, but the first example that comes to mind would be a passage that is attributed to the Apostle Peter. So then, let us look at this passage to determine if the person who wrote this, (whether Peter, or someone else), could have simply been mistaken. In other words, I believe we can determine beyond doubt from this passage, that the author, (whomever it may be), was either flat out lying, or telling the truth. I see no other avenue here.

First, I would like to point out, this letter begins,

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

So then, the author is clearly identifying himself as none other than the Apostle Peter. This can only mean the author was telling the truth, or the author was lying, there is no room here for simply, being mistaken.

As we move on through this passage and arrive at verse 16, the author explains,

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Notice the author's use of the word, "we," (plural), meaning there were others involved here. So then he is not just speaking for himself, but also for others as well.

The author seems to be going to the extreme to ensure that no one can make the mistake of believing that what he, and others proclaimed were based on myths, fairy tales, legend, folk lore, etc., but rather it was based on what the author claims is eyewitness testimony, when he states,

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories

In other words, he seems to be making sure no one can come to this conclusion, and he is saying in effect, "what we are proclaiming, were actual historical events." This means there is no room for being mistaken. Either, these men were actual eyewitnesses as the author states, or they were all three deceived, or they were liars. I see no room for simply being mistaken, especially since the author goes to this extent. As I said the author goes on to state,

but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So the contrast seems to be according to the author, "these things we proclaim, are not invented stories, (myths, wives tales, fairy tales, etc.), rather we were eyewitnesses to actual events. With this being the case, I can only see one of three options. They were somehow all deceived, they were lying, or they were telling the truth about what they had truly witnessed. There is no room here for simply being mistaken.

Now what was it that these men, according to the author, (and he is including himself), witnessed? He tells us,

He, (Jesus), received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain

It seems clear the author is referring to what has been called the, "Transfiguration of Christ." And guess what? This Transfiguration event this writer is describing is reported by three of the Gospel writers as well. Now think about this, here you have three different writers, writing to three different audiences, all reporting the same event. None of these Gospel writers were included in the event, however all three report that the Apostle Peter was involved, and witnessed this event. Then of course we have this letter we are looking at now, that has been attributed to Peter, and the author identifies himself as Peter, and he not only reports this event but goes on to say that he was one of the ones who actually witnessed this event. So then, with three different people reporting the event, and also including Peter in the event, and another letter in which the author identifies himself as Peter, and not only records the same event, but in fact claims to be one of the ones who actually witnessed the event, I would say this is pretty strong evidence that the author was exactly who he claimed to be, which was the Apostle Peter. Otherwise, what you would have is, three unknown authors writing sometime far into the future, that just so happen to record the same event, including Peter as one of the witnesses of this event, and then you would have someone who is identifying himself as Peter, when it is really not at all Peter, that just so happens to record this same event these other three men report, and goes on to just so happen to include himself as one of the witnesses.

I would suggest the evidence points to the fact that Peter was truly the author of, 2 Peter, and that this event truly happened, or Peter was a liar, with no room at all for him to simply be mistaken.

Now allow me to say this, there is pretty strong internal Biblical evidence that points to Luke being the author of, "The Action of the Apostles." There is no question whatsoever that whomever wrote, "The Acts,' also authored, "The Gospel of Luke." So then if it can be demonstrated that Luke authored, "The Acts," then there is no question that he would have authored "The Gospel of Luke," as well. So then, just from this short discussion we can pretty much establish the Apostle Peter, as the author of, 2 Peter. There is pretty strong evidence that Luke is the author of, "The Acts," and we know for certain, whomever wrote, "The Acts," authored, "The Gospel of Luke," as well. We also know for a fact that Paul authored all the letters attributed to him, so how many New Testament letters does that leave us with to question? And if we can be pretty certain of the ones we have discussed thus far, then why would it be such a stretch to think the rest of these letters are authored by the ones they have been attributed to?

At any rate the main point here is, I believe we have established beyond doubt that there is no way to defend these writers as simply being mistaken. The only options that seem open to me is,

1. They were deceived, and this would mean everyone of them in the same way.

2. They were all liars, and were able to hold these lies together in the face of those against them, and went on to create the largest Faith in the world.

3. They were simply reporting the truth.

There is no room for being mistaken, and I believe what we have discussed above demonstrates this.

[Zzyzx]

.

I intend to respond to all of the above, but if you have noticed it takes me a while. This is because I am working a great number of hours at this time which leaves me little time here.

Not to worry about response time. Everyone should realize that some have less time available for debate than others. I never rush anyone.

At any rate allow me to thank you all for the conversation, it gives me something to think on, during my long hours at work, which helps the time pass.

That is constructive use of the mind.

Identity of bible writers is unknown to Christian scholars and theologians.

This is a great example of what I described above which is, unbelievers, and Atheists, stating their opinion as fact.

RWJ, I hope it is not new information to you that Christian scholars and theologians readily acknowledge that they do not know who wrote "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" and that those names were assigned much later.

I believe it is pretty easily demonstrated that, Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him.

Those same scholars and theologians conclude that about half of Paul/Saul's letters may have been written by others using his name.

Here, RWJ, from a Christian source: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

Of the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul, most scholars today distinguish between two groups: those written by Paul himself vs. those written by his followers. However, since not all scholars are in agreement regarding the authorship of certain letters, rather than calling the two groups the “true� letters vs. the “false� ones, it is better to distinguish between the “undisputed� letters vs. the “disputed� ones.
The seven “Undisputed Letters� (a.k.a. the “Authentic Pauline Letters�).
These can be put into three subgroups chronologically:
The Earliest Letter (ca. 50-51 AD): 1 Thessalonians
The Middle Letters (mid 50's): 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians
The Latest Letter (ca. 57-58 AD): Romans
About 95-99% of scholars today agree that all of these letters were actually written by Paul himself.
 
The six “Disputed Letters� (a.k.a. the “Deutero-Pauline Epistles�).
For two of these, the scholarly divide is about 50/50 (that is, about 50% of scholars think they were written by Paul himself, while the other 50% think they are “pseudepigraphic� or written later by a follower of Paul):
If 2 Thessalonians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it soon after 1 Thess (in order to correct some misunderstandings caused by 1 Thess itself), since it is so similar in form and content to 1 Thess.
If Colossians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it near the end of his life (after spending several years in prison), since the theology expressed in it is rather different from Paul's earlier letters.
If either or both of these letters are pseudepigraphic, then they were probably written in the last few decades of the first Christian century.
For the other four letters, about 80% of scholars think they were not written by Paul himself, but by one of his followers after his death:
Ephesians is almost definitely a later expansion of Colossians, since they are so similar in structure and theology, but quite different from Paul's earlier letters; Ephesians was probably written to serve as a “cover letter� for an early collection of Pauline letters.
The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the “Pauline School� who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
Note: Judging a particular letter to be pseudepigraphic does not mean that it is any less valuable than the other letters, but only that it was written later by someone other than Paul.
All thirteen of the letters attributed to Paul are still considered “canonical�; all of them are still part of the Holy Bible and foundational for the Christian Church.
Distinguishing the letters based on actual authorship, however, allows scholars to see more clearly the development of early Christian theology and practice.
 
The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.
For centuries, many Christians counted it as the fourteenth work in the Pauline corpus, mainly because the epistolary ending mentions Timothy, Paul's closest associate (see Heb 13:23).
However, contrary to all other letters and epistles, the opening of Hebrews does not name its author at all.
In literary genre, therefore, Hebrews is not really a “letter�; rather, it is a “homily� (a scripture-based sermon).

Is that evidence enough that it is unwise to say "it is pretty easily demonstrated that, Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him"?

I am no longer surprised that many or most Christians have very little knowledge of what their own church experts know and say about such things – and have even less knowledge about early church history. Many Non-Believers seem to know more about the bible and church history than many Christians.

With this being the case,

It is decidedly NOT the case – in the opinion of experts (not just Unbelievers and Atheists).

there is at least reason to believe the original Apostles would have written down the events they claimed to have witnessed themselves.

Whoever the "original Apostles" may have been, there is no record of them producing written records. There is nothing beyond speculation concerning who witnessed what – and no eyewitness records of any of the events of the New Testament (or Old Testament too for that matter).

Two of the Gospels have been attributed to original Apostles, which would be, Matthew, and John.

Perhaps some people attribute gospels to "original Apostles", but that is not consensus of the scholarly / theological community.

But it seems to me the real question involved here is, whether Biblical writers were simply mistaken, out right lying, or telling the truth?

That is a BIG question.

I will assume, for the moment, that you are familiar with early church history and the history of the bible (unless you demonstrate otherwise).

The gospels were written by unidentified people decades, generations or even perhaps a century after the events and conversations they describe. This is NOT my opinion, but is repeatedly expressed by bible experts.

None of the writers can be identified (by church experts) and none can be shown to have personally known Jesus or to have witnessed his teachings or his actions. Even Paul/Saul admittedly did not know Jesus – but is claimed to have "met" him in a "vision" (or whatever it was). Thus, all were evidently writing from what they learned from others.

That is known as hearsay (that heard from others) or folklore, or legend, or fable, or myth. If a story is passed down from person to person for decades or generations or centuries it cannot be expected to be accurate. Humans are fallible. Memory is fallible. People exaggerate or leave out parts of stories.

Even after the stories were written, those original documents no longer exist. What we have are copies of copies of copies (by hand), translated through various languages (which ones is often disputed by scholars), edited, revised, and re-translated. The earliest existing bible is from centuries later.

Is it POSSIBLE that some parts of gospels were deliberately altered by later copyists? Do even religious people sometimes falsify or exaggerate (or do Christians or preachers ALWAYS tell the whole truth)? The Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that significant changes and insertions were made.

I accept that you (generic term) may be inclined to accept that because it is in the bible it must be true. That position may be appropriate in church or among fellow believers, but it does not work in debate when not everyone accepts the bible as truthful and accurate. Note that Forum Rules and Guidelines state clearly that the bible cannot be offered as proof that anything is true and that it is not regarded in debate as any more authoritative than any other text.