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?
The Problem with NonTheists and Facts
Moderator: Moderators
Post #107
[Replying to post 106 by JoeyKnothead]
All you have to do to deny reality is to set your bar of evidence so high that no evidence can be found (and only then is your worldview safe).
Unfortunately, this isn't how reality works.
If you want the privilege of denying that the gospels are not what they say they are, you have a burden of proof to meet.
**************
I quite enjoy being a Christian because of the people I meet. I always find them to be open-minded in practice and usually of good or great character, accountable, honest and generous.
I wish I could find that quality in others. I have hope for the world, but that's just me.
When people challenge the Bible, they usually do so in unsupportable terms, they make emotional arguments rather than rational ones, they act out of insecurity for themselves rather than just plain curiosity, and (as you did here) they hold the Bible to a different standard than they do any other historical document.
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.
All you have to do to deny reality is to set your bar of evidence so high that no evidence can be found (and only then is your worldview safe).
Unfortunately, this isn't how reality works.
If you want the privilege of denying that the gospels are not what they say they are, you have a burden of proof to meet.
**************
I quite enjoy being a Christian because of the people I meet. I always find them to be open-minded in practice and usually of good or great character, accountable, honest and generous.
I wish I could find that quality in others. I have hope for the world, but that's just me.
When people challenge the Bible, they usually do so in unsupportable terms, they make emotional arguments rather than rational ones, they act out of insecurity for themselves rather than just plain curiosity, and (as you did here) they hold the Bible to a different standard than they do any other historical document.
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.
-
WinePusher
Re: The Problem with NonTheists and Facts
Post #108My argument is that the disciples would not die for something they knew to be a lie, therefore they genuinely believed in the resurrection of Jesus and did not steal the body or make up a hoax. To support this I've cited various theories in the social sciences that indicate that humans are rational, self interested beings that seek to maximize utility and satisfaction. Dying for a lie does not maximize an individual's utility or satisfaction (it actually does the exact opposite). And I am not saying that their willingness to die proves Christianity to be true. What I'm saying is that their willingness to die shows that they genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead and that they didn't steal the body. Therefore the stolen body hypothesis does not adequately explain the empty tomb.Danmark wrote:Why do you persist in quoting yourself? If you cited an authority it would make a better argument.
It could mean that, but that would require alot of heavy lifting on your part. First of all, if they were deluded then they wouldn't really have the capability of stealing the body and constructing a fanciful lie about Jesus' resurrection. Second of all, is there any evidence that shows they were deluded? Additionally, is there any reason why we should we believe that massive amounts of people were deluded? Because remember, we're not talking about one single disciple that may or may not have been deluded. We're talking about a massive number of people that you're claiming were deluded or suffering from hallucinations.Danmark wrote:IF the disciples 'died for their beliefs' it may mean nothing more than that they were deluded, and their delusions were real to them, and they had 'the courage of their convictions' or, in other words, 'The Determination of their Delusions.'
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: The Problem with NonTheists and Facts
Post #109Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.WinePusher wrote:My argument is that the disciples would not die for something they knew to be a lie, therefore they genuinely believed in the resurrection of Jesus and did not steal the body or make up a hoax. To support this I've cited various theories in the social sciences that indicate that humans are rational, self interested beings that seek to maximize utility and satisfaction. Dying for a lie does not maximize an individual's utility or satisfaction (it actually does the exact opposite). And I am not saying that their willingness to die proves Christianity to be true. What I'm saying is that their willingness to die shows that they genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead and that they didn't steal the body. Therefore the stolen body hypothesis does not adequately explain the empty tomb.Danmark wrote:Why do you persist in quoting yourself? If you cited an authority it would make a better argument.
It could mean that, but that would require alot of heavy lifting on your part. First of all, if they were deluded then they wouldn't really have the capability of stealing the body and constructing a fanciful lie about Jesus' resurrection. Second of all, is there any evidence that shows they were deluded? Additionally, is there any reason why we should we believe that massive amounts of people were deluded? Because remember, we're not talking about one single disciple that may or may not have been deluded. We're talking about a massive number of people that you're claiming were deluded or suffering from hallucinations.Danmark wrote:IF the disciples 'died for their beliefs' it may mean nothing more than that they were deluded, and their delusions were real to them, and they had 'the courage of their convictions' or, in other words, 'The Determination of their Delusions.'
This kind of thinking is very easily refuted. A popular example would be John Forbes Nash, the Nobel Prize winning mathematician and economist on whose life the book and movie A Beautiful Mind was based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.
But we do not need to look at examples from the outer limits of the bell curve. As I have pointed out previously on this thread there are millions of people who believe in various delusions about human beings being God, virgin births, talking donkeys and winged horses flying people up to some paradise above the clouds.
The only difference between some religious delusions and other delusions is the popularity of religious delusions and the fact religious delusions, generally, are learned.
Last edited by Danmark on Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #110
I'm initially skeptical of your knowledge of the Bible if you don't think there are contradictions.The Me's wrote: I have yet to see any evidence directly contradicting any claim made by the Bible.
This means you believe the Bible is a perfect book. Which means you presuppose this, since there are no perfect books on Earth. Even the most meticulous history book will have errors in it. Yet, you without an advanced degrees in the subjects of the Bible, are challenging experts.
To say that you haven't seen any in the Bible makes you an uncritical believer.
This opinion of yours is completely worthless.
Stop the presses! Another Christian thinks the Bible is the cats pajamas!
BTW, did you know that Muslims think their book is perfect, too? Yet, I bet you can think of some problems with it.
Yet, they too have apologetics. I treat both Christian and Muslim (and Mormon) apologetics all the same - worthless propaganda.
Instead of asking us to disprove Zombies got up and walked around when Jesus died, how about you take on the burden of proof to show it actually happened.
I'm tired of this "well, lack of evidence against means it happened the way we say!" excuse.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
Post #111
When I state that "I have yet to see..." this is not a statement of belief, it's a statement that I've never seen anyone contradict the Bible, apparently including you, since you didn't offer one.Ooberman wrote:
I'm initially skeptical of your knowledge of the Bible if you don't think there are contradictions.
This means you believe the Bible is a perfect book.
(And no, I don't believe the Bible is "perfect", I believe that it was written in good faith, reflects actual history, and (so far) has been demonstrated to be error-free.
This is not a theological belief--I don't have very many of those.
This statement is based on my extensive study of the Bible, history and archaeology. Please enlighten me and tell me where I'm wrong.
Post #112
The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
Post #114
The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
Post #115
The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.
