[
Replying to POI in post #28]
This is so, so funny. You complain of my "text walls" and you do the same exact thing. The only difference is you break it up into a number of posts. I highly doubt too many folks are actually reading our exchanges. I can tell you that I am not concerned about the audience. The fact of the matter is, I am not playing to the audience, and I am not attempting to change anyone's views. Rather, I have been on this site for over a decade, and I enjoy it because it allows me to converse with those who are opposed to the position I have, and so I am not always, only conversing with those who are like minded. It is a way in which to put what it is I believe through the scrutiny, and also as a way to exercise the mind. For this I am thankful.
The fact of the matter is you have not "debunked" anything at all. You have responded to some of the points (not all) but you certainly have not debunked anything I have said. On the other hand, I have surely debunked your use of the falsifiable claim argument and demonstrated that it does not apply to this discussion. I have debunked your idea that if the Biblical authors are untrustworthy then we cannot really know very much of anything at all concerning the event surrounding the resurrection claims. I debunked your idea that I hold the Bible in high regard. I debunked the idea that I simply trust what it has to say. I debunked your idea that since we have the news media slanting the news, then this may be evidence which may be used against the Biblical authors. I have debunked your idea that the identity of the authors of the Gospels matter concerning things we can know. I have debunked your idea that it matters as to how many decades it may have been after the crucifixion that the Gospels were written. I have debunked the idea that it matters that the Church decided what would be contained in the Bible. You have complained that the claims contained in the Bible deserve intense scrutiny, and I have demonstrated that it has indeed endured such scrutiny. I have debunked your idea that your "gut feeling" matters. I have debunked your idea that the odds have anything to do with it. I have debunked your idea that cognitive dissonance would have a thing in the world to do with the facts we must agree upon concerning what is contained in the Bible.
All of the above, and more I have debunked completely. However, a mistake I see I have made above, is that I referred to some of the things above which I have debunked as being "yours" and the fact of the matter is, none of the arguments you make are yours. Even you admit yourself that none of the arguments are yours. SERIOUSLY! You cannot make this stuff up! You make the unfalsifiable claim argument, which I heard decades ago, and the argument I use is my own. I mean, it does not take a whole lot of knowledge concerning the unfalsifiable claim argument to understand that it was intended to be confined to science, and the one who rightly came up with the idea himself said that it was to be confined to science, and it was not intended to mean that there would be no reason to believe unfalsifiable claims. Who's doing the thinking for you? It is the one you heard the unfalsifiable claim argument from, because it certainly cannot be you, since it does not take a whole lot of thinking to understand that it does not apply.
Okay, the argument that the Biblical authors are not trustworthy could not have possibly originated with you, and that is a fact. But how many Christians have you ever in your life heard make the argument, and rightly so, "that it does not matter if the Bible is trustworthy or not"? I can tell you that I have never, ever heard a Christian say such a thing, because most Christians hold to the doctrine of inerrancy and would never entertain the idea that there could possibly be any error in the Bible. How many Christians have you ever heard make the statement, "inerrancy is a crutch for weak minded Christians"? I'd bet the house that would be none, but I have made that statement years ago.
You make the argument that it somehow matters that the Church decided what would be contained in the Bible. Again, this is not an argument of your own. Well, how many Christians have you heard make the argument that there is no Christian who can demonstrate that God was involved in the compiling of the Bible. Guess what? I said that years ago.
As a matter of fact, just to demonstrate how much I tend to think on my own, I would like to ask you have you ever heard a Christian, or anyone else make this argument from what is contained in the Bible? I have never, ever heard this argument from anyone at all, and it is concerning whether the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. Of course, we know that the author begins to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing certain events, and we would have to agree that this would naturally lead one to believe that the author was present to witness the events he is recording. Notice, I said "naturally" and there is no way one can argue that this is not what one would naturally believe. Okay, but we have those who have come up with the idea that the author may have been using a literary device and never intended to be understood as being present. I'm not the one to look at the odds, but if I were, I would suggest the odds are not very good at all that this is what the author intended. But the fact is, I have no way to measure the odds, but I would think that if we were able to determine how many times an author used the words "we" and "us" and intended to be understood as being present, as opposed to how many times it would have been a literary device, I would suggest the odds would be in favor of the author intending to indicate that he was present. But of course, I understand the odds have nothing to do with it, but I bring this up in order to demonstrate that my guess would be that you would want to ignore the odds in this case.
Moving on, there is other evidence to suggest the author was present with Paul on his journeys, but we do not have time to go into it here. However, there is another piece of evidence which strongly suggests that the author traveled with Paul, and I have never heard this argument from anyone at all. You can look it up if you like, but I have never seen this argument, and with this being the case, the argument is mine, and it is the strongest evidence that the author traveled with Paul.
You see, the author of the second letter to Theophilus begins this letter reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul arrives on the scene and begins his missionary journeys, for some strange reason we begin to only read of the actions of Paul, and we do not read of any of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why that would be? Of course, you can, and it is as plain as the fact that you have no arguments of your own, and it is the FACT that if this author was traveling with Paul then he would not be able to report on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem since he would have had no way to know what they were up to, since he was with Paul. And guess what? That is exactly what we have. The author begins the second letter reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until Paul begins his journeys, at which point we only hear of the actions of Paul, while we hear nothing of what is going on in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul returns to Jerusalem.
I could continue on with arguments that belong to me, because I have never been one who believes what I am expected to believe. My mind, (not me) is not afraid to go anywhere, and I cannot control it. As an example, I have argued over, and over with Christians concerning the inerrancy of the Bible. How many Christians have you heard argue against inerrancy? This is not an argument I have heard from someone else, but rather it is simply from my years of research. Every time, and I mean EVERYTIME I have had this argument with fellow Christians, and I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Bible they now hold in their hand cannot possibly be inerrant, they will always attempt to make the argument that "the originals were inerrant". Of course, I then have to go on to explain to them how insane such an argument is. I mean, we do not even have the originals in order to know this to be the case, and even if they were inerrant how would this help us out today? Again, it is insane!
The only reason I am explaining these things to you, is because I am demonstrating that I think on my own. If you are honest, when you were a Christian, you believed the Bible to be inerrant, and it is not because you thought through this yourself, rather you were simply regurgitating what you had heard from others. Now that you have changed the mind, you continue to simply regurgitate what you have heard from others without thinking, because if you were thinking then you would know that the unfalsifiable claim argument does not apply. You would have to know that even if we were to determine the authors contained in the Bible not to be trustworthy, this would not have a thing in the world to do with those things we can know to be true by reading the material. You would have to know the odds have nothing to do with what the truth actually is, and this would have to cause you to never refer to the odds.
But the thing is, a few posts later, you actually tell us that if we were only left with two impossible scenarios, the one being a resurrection, and the other being the disciples made the story up, you would go with the latter based on the odds. I mean, I cannot believe what I am reading here! We are both admitting that a resurrection is impossible, and we are both admitting that it would have been impossible that the disciples made the story up, and you are going to believe one over the other simply based upon the odds? GOOD GRIEF! My friend! The odds of the impossible is ZERO!
What you are demonstrating is that your problem is not cognitive dissonance per se, rather your problem is you choose to believe what you would rather believe, no matter the facts and evidence. You admit to simply choosing to believe what it was you would rather believe when you were a Christian, and your admission that you would choose to believe one impossible explanation, over another possible explanation simply based upon the odds, as opposed to the facts and evidence absolutely demonstrates one who chooses what it is they would rather believe. There is no probable explanation of the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the resurrection claims. There is no plausible explanation surrounding those claims, and there is no known possible explanation for the claims. When you were a Christian, you chose to believe the impossible, and now that you have changed the mind you choose to believe the impossible, and the facts and evidence do not even enter the equation for you. All you have done is to exchange one impossible scenario for another impossible scenario based upon what you would rather believe.
I can tell you this, I surely would not rather believe Christianity is true. Who would want to believe it? And yet, that is exactly what you did when you were a Christian, and that is because you did not truly understand Christianity, and you still know very little concerning Christianity and you have chosen to reject it based upon this faulty understanding. Again, how many Christians have you ever heard make the statement "I would rather not believe Christianity to be true"? I would suggest that number is extremely close to zero, if not an exact zero. This is because I tend to think for myself, and since this is the case, I understand that when one truly comes to understand Christianity then it is not possible to want to believe it. And yet, that is exactly what you did.
Seems you are under the 'minimal facts' camp, as I defined in post 13. Am I close?
You continue to put me in this "minimal facts camp" and I have finally decided to look this up, and from the little I have read it seems to me it has to do with applying the historical method to the claims, and or putting the claims thru scrutiny. No matter what one calls it, when the historical method is applied, we all come to know that the story of the resurrection being made up would be impossible. The fact of the matter is, there is no known possible explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, and you are putting hope against hope there is some sort of explanation out there that is unknown. In the end, you are exchanging one extraordinary tale, for another extraordinary tale, based upon what you would rather believe. The fact that critical experts have scrutinized the events surrounding the resurrection, and have come to the conclusion that it is not possible that the stories were made up, and these critical experts go on in an attempt to come up with any sort of answer in order to explain what it is we can know, should surely cause all of us to know there are no easy answers, but there are indeed easy answers when one simply chooses what it is they would rather believe, and you have demonstrated yourself to be in this camp.
I already explained why I believed. You make it sound like I believed based upon some willy nilly flip of a coin or something.
Not so! I am not making it sound like anything. Rather, it is a fact that you believed on the thinking of others, and you demonstrate this continued to be the case now that the mind has changed.
I would label myself as an "agnostic atheist". You can look it up if need-be.
Just another example of allowing others to do your thinking.
You are truly quibbling to gain very cheap nothing points, when you know exactly what I have meant all along. One-time "supernatural" witnessed events, as told from ancient antiquity, is basically not fully falsifiable. Language is a complex thing and context is always needed. Words have many meanings, and words even change meaning over time. Case/point, the word 'gay' has certainly changed in a very short amount of time. The "technicality" you keep harboring upon renders no difference at all here. You know this.
My friend, the bottom line here is, you heard the falsifiable claim argument from another and it sounded good and you simply regurgitate it without thinking it through, and I have demonstrated beyond doubt that the argument does not apply, PERIOD! It is not "cheap points" it is a slam dunk!
Again with the complete strawman. I've already explained this ad nauseum in prior responses. I care not to bore any onlookers with so much rinse/repeat here.
Okay, I will do the "rinse and repeat" for you. You were at one time a convinced Christian, and for decades of your life by taking the word of others. You did not think for yourself but allowed others to think for you. Where am I in error here? You now want to convince all others that it was the thinking process, (when you begin the read and think on your own) which caused you to begin to look at the facts and evidence and it was then that you rejected what you were convinced of for decades of your life for no reason. But the thing is, you have no arguments of your own. You continue to simply regurgitate what you hear from others, and it you would have just stopped to think about the arguments which sounded good to your ears, you just may have discovered that they really do not matter, or the arguments to not even apply.
I have been through this with folks I have had to council on this very matter. They wake up and realize they have been believing something all of their lives, simply because this is what they were taught to believe. My sister would be one of them, and I can attest to the fact that her whole life has been a complete mess exactly because of what we were taught coming up. As I have said, she is not the only one. I have had to walk these folks through the fact that, simply because you were taught to believe without the mind, does not mean the mind cannot be used to believe what it is you were taught to believe. However, there was a whole lot of garbage we were taught coming up, and it was this garbage (what I refer to as reckless theology) which has basically ruined the life of my sister. I can assure you that when one wakes up to understand that their whole life has been ruined by reckless teaching, this can certainly cause extreme anger, and anger can cause one not to think clearly.
You keep misrepresenting me. I'll give you an example for which I may have even given you in the past. If we were on an elevator ride, and I asked you what the book "Plato Rebublic' was about, could you do it before the end of the elevator ride? Yes. It is about defining what is justice. In that "justice" is defined as everyone in their rightful place, etc... Sure, I could also write a 50-page essay, but the gist was said in the elevator. Well, think of these exchanges as elevator rides. We are not here to write long essays, for which no others will read. Kapeesh?
My friend, we are not on an elevator ride, but are rather on a debate site, where debates, not elevator chats take place. I am not concerning myself with an audience, in fact I never even consider the idea the conversation could involve more than you and I. It causes one to wonder why one is playing to the audience?
I provided a scenario, and you completely skipped it. Jesus was likely never buried, as told from the Gospels, which throws the entire storyline off something fierce.
It does not in the least, and this is debunked by the fact that we can know the disciples could not have possibly made the resurrection claims up, no matter how, where, and even if Jesus was buried. How in the world could that matter?
Nah. I came to understand Roman culture a bit, and also read up a bit on Pilate. When doing so, the later part of the Jesus saga, as told from the "Gospels", is like trying to place a square peg into a round hole. And since we know the Gospels are corrupt, it makes sense to just discard some of the expressed absurdities.
Again, even if all of what you say above is true, you know, I know, and even the critical scholars know that the resurrection story could not have possibly been made up.
Please recall the "missing keys" analogy given in a prior response. No matter how many naturalistic explanations seemingly come up blank, lending any more credence to a claim that "the keys moved themselves" is still absurd.
You continue to come up with analogies, which is not even close to what we have in the resurrection claims. It is more like, you go to a funeral, only to find the casket empty. Your first thought would certainly not be that the deceased rose up from the casket. But then you have a very distressed person in the room who is claiming to have seen just that, and then you have those coming in from the parking lot claiming to have seen the deceased walking through the lot, with still others claiming to have spoken to the deceased, and in the end, we can determine none of these folks could have been making the story up. You then go through all the possibilities in order to determine if there is any known natural explanation. Again, it would be called the historical method in order to determine what all we can know, and the resurrection claims have been through this method, and there are certain things we can know, and you simply choose to believe what you would rather believe, because there is no known explanation which would not include the extraordinary.
It's ironic, I can readily admit my cognitive dissonance(s). Can you at least do the same? Since we know rotting bodies don't rise, it is illogical to still make an exception, especially based upon both shotty testimonials and evidence(s).
Yes, we can both admit to cognitive dissonance, but cognitive dissonance has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the disciples could not have made the story up. Cognitive dissonance is when one insists, they will not believe something which is impossible but then goes on to admit they are willing to accept anything at all no matter how impossible the scenario would be as long as it does not involve the impossible scenario they would rather not believe.
I do not know how to better explain this to you. Sure, the story being made up is a more likely explanation. However, once you have determined such a scenario would be impossible, it is impossible on the same level and choosing to believe what you know to be impossible, demonstrates one who is choosing to believe what they would rather believe.
I am going to leave it here for now, and I look forward to your response. However, in my next response I am going to focus in on one point you make, and I am going to force you to defend that one point until is has been exhausted. In other words, we are going through your points one at a time in order to determine if you can defend that one point.
I could not agree more. I go out of my way, mostly, to seek exchange with folks who have differing viewpoints. I too love for my thoughts and positions to be challenged. And yes, these exchanges keep the mind sharper. This is one of the reasons I come here. Debating core beliefs, like religion and politics quickly taps into many topics. You can be exposed to many topics very swiftly.
