WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #1

Post by POI »

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #111

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:31 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:41 am So then, as you can see, this author tells his audience at the time, these reports were not based upon, "fables". Rather, the author claims to have been an eyewitness, who was there with Jesus at the time. Of course the author could have been lying, but you would think the original audience would have been able to know if the author would have been alive at the time to actually make such a claim.
Who is this author and why don't you refer to him by name? If you don't know his identity or credentials then how can you be so sure his alleged audience knew any better?
One thing we know with certainty is that the author identifies himself as "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ". Therefore, this author is identifying himself as the Apostle Peter. This is certainly evidence that the author was Peter. What evidence do we have, which would suggest, this author falsely identified himself to his audience? Next, this author tells his audience, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you", and we just so happen to have another letter in which the author identifies himself as, The Apostle Peter. This is certainly evidence the author was indeed Peter. So, what evidence do we have which would suggest this author falsely identified himself? Next, this author refers to an event in which he was on the mountain with Jesus, claiming to have been an eyewitness, when the "voice came down from heaven". Well, guess what? We just so happen to have, not one, not two, but three different disconnect sources (unless of course you would like to demonstrate how these different sources would have been connected) reporting upon this same exact event, who all 3 just so happen to mention, Peter would have been present. Next, this author also references Paul by saying, " just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you", and we know that Peter would have known Paul very well. So again, what evidence do we have which would suggest this author would have falsely identified himself to his audience?

What is listed above is indeed evidence of who this author would have been. If you suggest the above is not evidence, then I can only imagine you are one who simply chooses to believe, what you would rather believe. So then, either the author was indeed who he claimed to be or, somehow, someone, orchestrated all these things in order to make it seems as though Peter would have been the author, and did so in multiple different sources? Or, all these things just so happen to correspond together neatly?

It seems to me, either way, we are dealing with the "extraordinary". Either this letter was authored by the Apostle Peter, who would have witnessed the life of Jesus firsthand? Or, all these writings would have been orchestrated by someone so as to make it look as though Peter would have been the author? Or, somehow, someway, all these things just so happen to coincide together, in order to make it look as though Peter would have been the author, even though this would have been an author who falsely identified himself?

The bottom line here is, if you happen to believe the author would not have been Peter, I have no problem with that in the least. The problem will come in, if you go on to insist, I have no reason to believe the author would have been, Peter.
If you don't know his identity or credentials then how can you be so sure his alleged audience knew any better?
I did not say his audience would not have known any better as far as if he would have actually been there to witness the event. Rather, it would certainly seem as if, his audience would have known if the author would have been alive at the time, in order to be able to claim to have witnessed the event.

POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #112

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm Reading comprehension. The whole lying bit was more of a preface to the case that I was building...it had nothing to do with whatever case you were making.
Exactly. Like I stated in the previous response, for which you omitted, I guess we can add (L)egend to the list to the theist trilemma argument. This is more my argument. Do what you want with your (L)iar argument. I have no interest in it...
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Quite a bit of 'faith' you have going on here... You must assume that Paul and Peter were the proverbial gatekeepers to all incorrect gossip.

Takes quite a bit of 'faith' to assume they could oversee such a vast area? Because, you know, Christians also state the stories spread far a wide very quickly.

Hmm. Yet in Paul's epistles, he does exactly that. In his espistles he is quelling false teachings, false teachers, and setting the foundation for the Christian church as the religion continued to grow.
Sure, wherever he was... But like I stated prior, for which you also ignored... Christians state the story spread really fast and wide. Paul cannot be in all places at once. Unless you would like to now suggest he had magical powers too? Since we do not know who the Gospel writers are, we have no clue from where they got their source information?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm You just pointed out yet another problem with the topic of antiquity. Thank you.
And which problem is that?
"We cannot know what was originally written, and by whom?"
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm If you do not know who wrote it, then you have absolutely no idea of what this person's motivation(s) may be?
Oh please..
"Oh please.." what? Do you know who wrote the Gospels? I'll answer for you. No.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Is this based upon a hunch, or do we have 'evidence'?
The age of a person when they decide to write something is irrelevant. No relevance whatsoever, and this is more of what I would call filler skepticism, where, when you run out of things to be skeptical about, you appeal to filler nonsense to keep the skeptical party going.
I'm afraid it's quite important. Please stop avoiding the the math. I'll answer for you, since you continue to avoid here....

Again, you have no starting point. We do not know who wrote the Gospels, and exactly what year. We have a suspected range for Mark, which is around 65-80AD. Then the rest of the Gospels are quite a bit later. Based upon the math, it highly unlikely the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, since they were all likely already dead.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm What are the odds that the Gospel writers were not only direct eyewitnesses, but lived long enough to report these events themselves? And please, don't just assume, let's see some evidence? Oh wait, that's right.... We do not know who they were. So I guess you are hosed :) Your starting point is unknowable.
Well, don't believe it then. Asking me the "odds" of a person living long enough to do something is just plain silly and I won't even consider it as a viable question that needs to be answered.
You do not want to consider it, because doing so would/could cause great damage to your argument.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
Problem, since we cannot know what was originally written, and by whom?
Which is something you can say about any ancient work of literature. So the entire field of historical inquiry is flushed down the toilet with one faulty, ridiculous premise.
Ah, I was wondering when you were going to say this...

When a claim from antiquity is made, knowing WHO wrote it is not always important. It depends on the claim, and what other variables we can investigate.

But in the case for a resurrection claim, or any one time claimed miraculous event, it's good to know who wrote what, and what was their source(s)? Being that it is a claim which required 'eyewitnesses...' Since we do not know who wrote them, when, and where they received their information, we have no known starting point?

I mean, it's not like we are exploring the claims of a flood, an exodus from Egypt claim, or other, where we may have other stuff to go upon. If we were able to discover that 2M Jews did escape Egypt, then we might not care who wrote about it. But a claimed one time miraculous event, which leaves behind no evidence, cannot really be investigated without eyewitnesses at least?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm It does not matter if you have 1 copy, or 12,000,000 copies. The copy is a copy of a copy of a copy, with no knowledge of the original, and who wrote it? If I recopy the Rig Veda, 12,000,000 times perfectly, then what? Is the story any more real? Of course not. So please stop with this argument.
And this is how I can tell that you are out of touch when it comes to history, and paleography. Because if you were informed, you would know that the more copies you have of a writing, the better.
This is not my first rodeo buddy. I'm aware of what you claim. Please read what I stated... Are the number of copies any more significant, if the original story is incorrect? If it should turn out we have 20 millions early copies of the Rig Veda, would that matter? Prolly not. You do not accept/believe the source claims. And it;s likely not because they don't possess the most copies.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
I mentioned Mark 16:9-20, simply to demonstrate that Mark has <at least> two authors.
Which is a known fact that no one is disputing.
So this makes a minimum of two non-eyewitnesses, for where we have no clue of where they obtained their information?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm And do we not know who either of them are? No! Hence, what else was written, before this? The earliest full copies of the copies of the copies date to 100-200 years later.
LOL yeah, if the earliest full copies of the copies date to 100-200 years later, that would mean that the original(s) were written even earlier, which is prior to 100 AD.

So, what point are you trying to make again??
Doh! You stepped right into this one... The earliest full copies are discovered to be -- (simple search):

"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."

Sorry, I was being generous. The full copies did not start popping up until about 300 years later. Oppsie :)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Well, until you state why, my statements stand:

- are the claims politically or socially unbiased? No, the Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers. Think Fox v. MSNBC for example
- were any of the authors eyewitnesses? No
- are all the sources consistent? No
Ok, so let me address this non sequitur..

"The Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers...therefore, what the church said about the Gospels cannot be true"

That's what I got out of it.

Non sequitur.
Well, then you are presenting a straw-man. Good job. This is not what I mean at all.

- Especially during these times, did churches present political and/or social bias?
- Did the church vote upon what was to be canonized, and what is to be left out?
- Did any punishment take place, for non-conformists?
- Did the church canonize the Gospels while any eyewitnesses were still alive to cross reference?
- Are the 4 accounts even consistent?
- Can you see the (L)egend growing, with more and more 'magic', as you read from Mark to John?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Welcome to cognitive dissonance. You have just abandoned your own argument..

You must now reconcile "something", besides 'God', has an infinite regress -- that is also not created. This 'something' does not necessitate 'god'.
First of all, I never said nor implied that God has an infinite regress in fact, I've stated many times elsewhere that God himself is subjected to the problem of infinite regress, which is why no proponent of the KCA would ever make such a claim.

So basically, you are attacking straw man and you are clearly misinformed on the nitty gritty details of the KCA.
Then the Kalam is even more irrelevant.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm And here were are, unknown to whether or not the 'universe' is eternal? :)
Faulty premises only leads to faulty conclusions.
Right, so please completely abandon the Kalam, as P2 is an unknown. Since you and I are not cosmologists, lets ask one... Hey Dr. Carroll, did the universe begin to exist?




We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm It sounds nothing of the sort. Religion requires worship and dogma. Science ascribes to neither. I appeal to stuff that is proven to work, and science has a pretty good track record. Unless you are under the impression that science will never solve another issue? Is science done?
Theology has a pretty good track record, too. Theology explains the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and the origins of consciousness...3 things of which science is incapable of explaining.
We've made many discoveries of prior unknowns. And none of which have revealed any god pulling the strings. But like I said, keep your fingers crossed for the remaining unknowns.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:37 pm
POI wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Kool. Finally. Thank you. I know that was hard for you.

This means that all Christians who do not beat their kids with whips are unloving and evil. Good to know.

Care to answer additional yes/no questions now; which demonstrate whether or not you are hearing the from the Holy Spirit?
Sure. If it is line with the Bible, the answer will be yes. If not, then no. No shame in my game.
Great. Let me sum up your argument for you, about knowing if the 'Holy Spirit' communicates with you, verses listening to 'evil'...

You are influenced by 'evil' if you do not whip your kids, if you allow women to lead in church, of you detest slavery on any and every level without exception, think homosexually is amoral or okay, etc.....

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #113

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:44 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am If you are simply sharing what you believe to be true, without making any sort of "assertions" which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then you own no burden. The problem comes in when there are those such as Dawkins, who purposely avoid any sort of "assertions", in an attempt to force the burden upon the Christian.
Why is it a "problem" if someone does not make any positive assertions and hence is not required to accept any burden of proof? That does not force the burden of proof onto anyone else, Christian or otherwise. If Christians engage in proselytising or simply making positive claims about the existence of their God, then they automatically have an associated burden of proof. If they don't want it, there is an obvious solution which would not be a problem for anyone at all.
Why is it a "problem" if someone does not make any positive assertions and hence is not required to accept any burden of proof?
Nothing at all, which has been my point! In other words. neither the Christian, nor the atheist, owns the burden, until, or unless an assertion is made. Therefore, if a Christian is simply explaining what it is they believe, along with why they happen to believe as they do, and does not make any assertions which cannot be demonstrated to be fact, then the Christian, and the atheist is in the same boat, not owning the burden.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #114

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Your quotation of yourself above is just simply inaccurate. Here, let me help you with tap of accuracy.
"Quantum mechanics deals with events, and either these events could be causal (determinate) or non-causal (indeterminate)."
There, much better.
BTW. I have no desire to read novel analogies. Keep it short & sweet.
I stand corrected I meant to say the definition but I typed something different.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am
Nonsense. Let me provide a quote...

"In the causal interpretation of quantum theory of David Bohm, it is in principle possible to predict the decay of a single isotope (single event). Radioactive decay is described deterministically in terms of well-defined particle trajectories."
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Radi ... eory/#more

As I stated, there are interpretations of QM which have deterministic causes....and neither interpretation offers any defeaters of the philosophical arguments against infinite regress and also against the idea that objects can pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing.
Then appealing to either one is a waste of time.

Coming from a person who offered radioactive decaying as evidence contrary to premise 1 of the KCA, without demonstrating whether such a hypothesis/interpretation is true.
First, you state that atom decay MAY have uncaused elements to it..well, if it may, then it also may NOT.

Then you challenge the religious to bring empirical evidence to show the determinism, when you have NOT brought any empirical evidence to show the indeterminism.
As you stated, you are pointing to the unknown, so you just dont know.
Well, quit appealing to indeterminism if you don't know.
I do not appeal to either one, because for the umphteenth time, the philosophical arguments that I provide is independent of physics, cosmology, or what your favorite scientist has to say on the matter....and such arguments don't care about any past or future discoveries in science.
No, let me spell it out for you. I will say this to you ONE LAST TIME...

There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics...some of those interpretations are indeterministic, and some are deterministic. No one knows which interpretation is correct, and there is this free-for-all thing going on where everyone has an opinion, but no one can definitely prove it either way.
So according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, virtual particles and radioactive decay DOES have causes.
Do you not understand that? Either way, I've stated this multiple times and you don't seem to get it...and I won't be repeating myself again, with all due respect.
Q: Do you make the distinction between saying there is talk of radioactive decay being uncaused and claiming radioactive decay is uncaused? :shock:
I never claimed the two things are uncaused.
Your fighting a straw man.
Claimants of “Everything that begin to exist has a cause” need to prove their positive claim.
Pointing to certain interpretation being possible does not count, for subjective ponderings, hypothesises does not equal reality.
One has to bring empirical evidence and show the determinism.
Q: If you don't bring empirical evidence to show the determinism how can you claim everything that begins to exist has a cause?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am I do not appeal to either one, because for the umphteenth time, the philosophical arguments that I provide is independent of physics, cosmology, or what your favorite scientist has to say on the matter....and such arguments don't care about any past or future discoveries in science.
Șir the argument claims "Everything the begins to exist has a cause".
Q: How is the fact that the premise must be true not related to that talk “there may be things that are uncaused”?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am The same way you can check to see if you don't really know everything, but on the flip side. Think of a question that you don't know the answer to...and once it dawns on you that you don't really know the answer, then guess what, you've checked.

Never once in God's eternal life did he ever answer "I don't know" to a question, and he has had an eternity to sit back and think of a question that he doesn't know the answer to...and he has never succeeded.
It’s not about if it knows an answer to a certain question like: “what is a quark?”.
A being must also know that it knows it is omniscient, self-knowledge being just another form of knowledge.
Q: When a being1 checks if it knows everything and concludes it knows everything how can it know for sure that the conclusion is correct? Can it know though?
Q: How can it know for sure its not created by another being2 and maybe that being2 hide the fact being1 was created by an outside being(being2)?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Omniscience is irrelevant to the KCA.
Is relevant for if you are not omniscient you cannot claim “Everything something” for you would need to know everything.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am There is nothing that a thousand gods can do that one omnipotent God can't do.
This does not refute the fact that there may be more then one cause. Therefore assuming one is fallacious. Ergo the fallacy of the single cause.
Answer please.
Q: Are you saying that one mind is better then an hive-mind of three(Trinity)?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Then don't make postulations if you are either unable or unwilling to provide evidence/proof for what you posit.

If your claim is..

"You only provided two options, when there could be more than just those two".

And I challenge you to enlighten me of these "more" options that you speak of...

And your response is "I don't need to provide anything."...

Then my response is "Well, you should have kept this "more" business to yourself."
Sir pointing to the false dichotomy fallacy is not stating there is option3(claim) but that there may be option 3 and its fallacious to assume there can only be two options where in fact there maybe 3 or 4. I did not claim anything. :)
You were the one arrogantly claiming something when you cannot know for sure.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am They kept being wrong about which God. They didn't keep being wrong about a God.

Atheists are wrong in both regards.
The pattern is real though. Gaps in knowledge were filled with God.
As society progressed and humanity knowledge improved more newer and complicated Gaps got filled with God(how life began or appeared on our planet, infinite regress and the actual infinites possibility of being real and so one).
Special pleading that one filling of a gap with GOD is more special then other fillings of gaps with GOD because there are newer and more complicated is rather comical indeed. :D
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am That is where you are wrong. The KCA states that nothing happens without a precedent cause, whether efficient or material, the causal principle is not negated.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (nothing pops in to being, uncaused, out of nothing).

2. The universe began to exist (the universe did not pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (the universe owes its existence to something outside of itself).

The meaning of the word cause is consistent, and the only thing flawed here is your understanding of the argument.
But the “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” that is used to prove ex nihilo creation also has attached a material cause to it. Common sense tells us that “Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause and a material cause”. So its dishonest to appeal to common sense of known reality(where we only know of material cause together with efficient cause) while keeping terms vague and saying after but it refers to something else.

Common sense of course may be fallacious as quantum mechanics physicists make new findings every days as the two texts I supplied which talked of indefinite causal order, indefinite causality. Which give though support to the notion that quantum mechanics may have indeterminate components. (please don’t ignore this point again looks bad)

“In labs in Austria, China, Australia and elsewhere, physicists observe indefinite causal order by putting a particle of light (called a photon) in a superposition of two states. They then subject one branch of the superposition to process A followed by process B, and subject the other branch to B followed by A. In this procedure, known as the quantum switch, A’s outcome influences what happens in B, and vice versa; the photon experiences both causal orders simultaneously.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/
“Giulia Rubino and colleagues have designed an experiment to show that causal order can be genuinely indefinite. By creating wires between a pair of operating gates whose geometry is controlled by a quantum switch — the state of single photon — they realized a superposition of gate orders. From the output, they measured the so-called causal witness, which specifies whether a given process is causally ordered or not. The result brings a new set of questions to the fore — namely, where does causal order come from, and is it a necessary property of nature?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4134

Analogy:
Also using normal spherical object which exist to prove perfect spherical spheres exist is fallacious(non sequitur).
And also one does not know if perfect spherical objects can exist in reality. First one need to show such concepts are possible to exist.

Correctly the argument should be like:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a (material and efficient) cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a (material and efficient) cause.(maybe the multiverse it which it resides)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Use ignorance? I asked a question...and I will ask again; can science give you infinite regress?
You are ignorant because you have an infinite regress problem.
You cannot solved it so therefore God.
It does not follow that because you or me or anyone in this slice of time cannot solved it that no one will solve it without using the copout God did it in any other slices of time.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Before creation, there were no prior events and God had an eternal, necessary will to create. After creation, time is initiated, and God now operates within time and chooses actions based on prior events, such as God punishing a person now (present event) for something the person did yesterday (prior event).
Defining God as having an eternal, necessary will to create to support the conclusion(creation) sounds rather circular and comical.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am I don't get how the question is relevant to the discussion.
I still don't understand. Can you provide a short/sweet analogy to drive home whatever point you are attempting to make.
The mechanism which the agent(a human) uses to make a choice needs to be or have components which are completely random or objectively random(not related in any way shape of form to memories, beliefs, psychological traits=impossible to predict) for free will to exist. Therefore free will needs to be uncaused.
If human free will exists(as Christian believe) there cannot be said that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” because there exists something that is uncaused: free will.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am So, when I count to 10, I am not really counting to 10? This is just an illusion? If I stab someone 10 times...I can say to the judge and jury "I did not stab that person 10 times, it is just an illusion".
"When I count to 10" is a meaningless concept in B theory of time.
Al, your counts exist at the same time. The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am If there is no first cause, then the past is eternal and there is an infinite chain of cause/effect relationships within time.

Impossible.
I said first cause= cacaverse.
Next is multiverse. And third the universe.
There is no infinite causes. There is no time outside universe.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am The Uncertainty principle (which deals with momentum and position of a particle) has nothing to do with whether or not things can pop into existence, uncaused, out of the state of nothingness.
I meant as “Uncertainty principle” Gödel’s two incompleteness theorem “a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent”. This has great implication to logic and mathematics.
Basically affirming arrogantly “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is just akin to the “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:20 am Sounds like deism to me. To postulate multiple non-physical causes acting as first movers, is to leave atheism and step into the world of supernaturlism.

Either way, atheism is defeated. I will take the W.
The argument is about the fallacy of the single cause not about atheism.
I could care less that atheism is false. I don’t have emotional stuff invested in being true. 8-)
Please don’t bore me with irrelevant nonsense in an pathetic attempt to distract from the point.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #115

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am [Replying to POI in post #98]
Ah, your beef is you think we doubters of such assertions are avoiding a 'necessitated' burden.
NO! If you are simply sharing what you believe to be true, without making any sort of "assertions" which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then you own no burden. The problem comes in when there are those such as Dawkins, who purposely avoid any sort of "assertions", in an attempt to force the burden upon the Christian. This is clearly a tactical argument, which shows no concern for the actual truth. The problem with this argument is, the Christian who is simply sharing what they believe to be true, who does not make any sort of "assertions" which they cannot demonstrate to be true, would not own any sort of burden. The point is, this tactic does not in any way shift the burden to the Christian. The Christian, like the atheist, only owns the burden when they make certain claims.
Okay, I read what you are saying. I don't know that I yet agree? Case/point...

Say you tell your best friend his wife is cheating on him. Many 'signs' are there, but he still fails to acknowledge any of the 'signs'. I see this more as possibly possessing a genuine cognitive dissonance. But at some point, unless he never actually catches her in the act himself, he may retain this cognitive dissonance. If he does ever catch her, he might then go from dissonance to now 'knowing' his wife is a cheater. At some point, the evidence overwhelms him enough, to where he accepts the claim you had already made to him. He then has to admit to the presented evidence, regardless of his bias and/or compartmentalization.

Do you feel this is where you stand, when it comes to the "resurrection" claim? (i.e.) All the 'signs'/evidence are there, just short of seeing it actually happen? And that the ones who state they do not believe it, for whatever reason, have not had that iron-clad aha moment?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
This explains the hostility to come, from reading your continued response below
If I come across as "hostile" I assure you this is not my intent. Let's just say this is something I struggle with. The reason why I struggle with this is because I grew in an environment where feelings were not taken into consideration. My wife scolds me about this all the time. What she tells me many times is, "it is not what you say, it is the way in which you say it". I will attempt to do better, but I cannot promise. It is just the way I am. I do not mean anything by it.
Thank you for your explanation. I'm not offended in any way. I just feel that too many 'shots', (in both directions), will distract from what may instead be a productive conversation. Honestly, I see that few of these (believer v. doubter) conversations ever are... But maybe this one is going to be different?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Venturing back to your first voluntary response, you cited the same bullet points I listed in the OP. Care to explore the very first one? I.E. "we all invoke type 1 errors"? If not, care to start with another?
I believe if you were to go back to post 77, I believe I addressed all the bullet points besides the "type 1 errors" and I skipped that one because I had no idea what it was. The thing is, I have been on this site for a good number of years, and it was brought to my attention just the other day that I have posted some 2146 post here in my time. I can assure you in that time, I have explained much of what I believe, and why I believe as I do, and you are free to examine all you would like. The thing is, you listed your bullet points, I have addressed them, where do we go from here?
You stated yourself, that you are not following my conversation with "Venom". Hence, aside from what you and I directly engage, this is all you know here.

On a side note, the one you skipped deals with inferring "false positives". We make them all the time. I feel it's a 'core' reason why most infer a 'god'. But if you feel this does not involve you, at all, then maybe it doesn't? I'll place a video here. Of course, you do not have to watch it. But I do not want to present a 'text wall' explanation. If you feel it's relevant, after you should decide to watch it, feel free to engage. If not, I'll assume this is still not up your alley. BTW (please ignore the title of the presented video), Also, you may want to fast forward passed the first two minutes and thirty seconds:


Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Again, there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing you have told me is really anything new.
Oh really? So then, when I explain to you from the Bible, "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son", this was nothing new to you? If so, then why would you ask me to elaborate?
For the same reason I ask Christians what it takes to be saved :) The Bible makes a lot of claims. Which ones resonate with you more, and which ones do you ignore?

Case/point, "Venom" and WLC believe the "Holy Spirit" communicates with them. Should I assume this is only because they have not read this specific passage you cited?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
You were raised in Christianity, and augmented this belief system accordingly, to follow your logic and reason;
I really do not know how you have come to this conclusion? You yourself seem to admit you wanted to believe the Christian claims, but somehow came to a different conclusion. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I could not have cared less which side I ended up on, because I had a lot at stake. If I would have had some sort of bias, it would seem as if I would have landed right exactly with what I was taught as a child? In other words, why would I go to the extent of having to depart from being able to worship with my own family? Does that make sense to you? I mean, what is the difference? Hey, mom and dad, I am not a believer? Or, hey mom, and dad, I believe most of what you taught me was a bunch of garbage?
I disagree. Maybe you would abandon ship altogether, and either become an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, or look to other religions? Maybe you just found what suites your logic better, in the 'Christian church next door'? But at the end of the day, it's still under the same large umbrella.

My abandonment came, when I realized there exists very little, if any evidence to suggest a resurrection took place. For starters, when I realized there was not hundreds of independent 'eyewitnesses', by definition.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Does there exist an external and objective way to verify truth in the claims for which you believe?
"Verify" is a mighty strong word. Let's just say, like Dawkins I have a great amount of certainty.
What comes to mind first? What category mostly draws this certainty?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Great. So is it then possible such believed claims are substantiated/validate by way of conformation bias, which stems from the aforementioned topic of indoctrination?
Of course it is possible. We all can be guilty of "confirmation bias" even those who claim not to know. There are times when I have to wonder whether a person I am dealing with is operating upon "confirmation bias". Can you imagine why I never bring this into the conversation? Well, that would be exactly because I understand "confirmation bias", and it could be myself who is the guilty party. Therefore, when another continues to bring this into the conversation, it causes me to wonder if they truly understand "confirmation bias"?

As far as what you refer to as "indoctrination", I can assure you that I have shed myself of a tremendous amount of what I was taught about Christianity. It seems sort of strange, one who claims to have been indoctrinated, and goes on to claim, they wanted Christianity to be true, somehow is able to shed themselves of this indoctrination, who now seems to want to pin indoctrination, as a cause of belief for those who have come to a different conclusion? I guess you are the lucky one, huh? I guess you were intelligent enough to see through your indoctrination, while I am still stuck in mine?
I currently feel that had you truly shed your 'conformation bias' and 'indoctrination', you might instead be, as stated above - an agnostic/gnostic atheist, or ascribe to another agnostic/gnostic religion? So what exactly still keeps you under the same (large umbrella) as your parents?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Well, the take away could be... What were these topics/categories which turned such a person from one conclusion to another?
Well my friend, as I have already stated, a number of these folks have gone on to write book volumes describing the events which caused their conversion. Some of these folks were not only opposed to Christianity at the time, they were hostile to it, and you are more than free to read what they have to say. I want to be perfectly clear in saying that I do not believe their stories demonstrate anything, any more than the many, many former Christians stories here on this site demonstrates anything.
Yea, I got that. We did already touch on this... (i.e.) "what is actually true". But you admit there may be no external way to confirm this... The Bible itself is apparently from the viewpoint of 40 authors. It's not like Jesus wrote anything to paper Himself. Thus, what experiences/evidence/wrtings/other cause you to be certain? -- (This question may be viewed as rhetorical <or> is already being addressed in another area. If so, no need to answer here).
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
I have already mentioned a few, in the OP; for which you have agreed... Care to explore one of them -(if not already started above in a prior request)?
As I have already said, I have addressed all but one of them in post 77. The problem with them is, none of them would have a thing in the world to do with the truth of the matter. As an example, I agree, and am thoroughly convinced that many Christians (maybe even most) are stuck in their indoctrination, and do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it. However, I can assure you, this is not in any way whatsoever evidence against the Christian claims. This is why I say, if it is these sort of things which cause your doubt in Christianity, then you really have no reason for your doubt.
Yes, knowing the problem is half the cure. But this is not why I doubt.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am However, allow me to give you one reason, and I am not attempting to be a "smart aleck" here. One of the reasons is, the more time I spend on this site, conversing with those who seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as paring your reason down to one main reason, who go on to demonstrate they really have no reason for the doubt they have.
Interesting response...
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
You missed the point. A Book is not extraordinary evidence, is it?
I am going to assume the "book" you are referring to would be the Bible? If I am correct, this sort of demonstrates one who has a lack of knowledge of what the Bible actually is. Let us concentrate upon the NT. The NT is a collection of writings, the overwhelming majority of which can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the author having no idea, or intention that his letter would be read by anyone else besides his original audience at the time, and they certainly could not have had any idea whatsoever about any sort of bible these letters would have been contained in. The point is, these folks were not writing in order for you, or I, nor the world to know these things, and they certainly were not writing in order to be contained in the Bible. Now, this does not cause the content to be "extraordinary", but I am not the one who is championing the idea that "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence".
Oh, I already have a pretty good idea about how the NT was formed. But as I stated prior, to verify a one time miraculous event, in the ancient passed, we would need many corroborated independent eyewitnesses. Do we surely have this? I'd say, that by definition, we don't. Later authors, writing about what other believed, doesn't really count.

Thus, a resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Just like a haunted house is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary evidence, to support these extra ordinary claims, could/would be many independent and corroborated eyewitnesses. But even today, though we have countless haunted house claims, which require 'evidence', we somehow do not get all these corroborated 'eyewitness' accounts. Or do we? Many believe these things exist, and many don't.

As I told you prior, I do not currently accept any 'supernatural' claims as fact; as the evidence for all such claims is lacking. Why? Because the evidence is not extraordinary... Maybe if all the doubters to these haunted houses hired their own independent film crew, captured a bunch of 'haunting' footage, and then the skeptics to the claim verified no modification?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
Claiming it is legend, oral tradition, lacks eyewitnesses, etc, does not qualify as extraordinary.
Oh, I begged to differ. However, to begin with, why don't you give me any sort of evidence that what we have contained in the NT would be, "legend, oral tradition"? As far as "eyewitnesses" go, I have already shared with you an author who claims to have been an "eyewitness". So, what evidence would we have which may suggest this would have been false information? Let us just start there, and I think we will begin to see just how "extraordinary" it would be for what you say to be true.
I'll do you one better. For decades, what compelled me to retain my belief that "Jesus must have actually resurrected" was the ongoing claim that we have 100's of 'eyewitnesses'. This was, of course, until I read the Bible for myself. When I got to this arena, I was quite disappointed to find out we likely have little or no evidence to support the assertion/claim made in 1 Corinthians 15:6

Or how about the claim in Matthew 27:52? No others notice this and record it? The rising dead must have not been extraordinary, during these times? It was so mundane, no one reported it, besides the anonymous claim itself. Sure, you could say that most were illiterate and couldn't write about it. But again, then God is telling the reader to rely upon 'faith' that such an extraordinary event actually happened.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am
The Book is the claim.
Which again, goes to demonstrate a lack of knowledge.
Any book can make claims. It's up to the reader to investigate the claim, outside the claim of the book, if they so choose. Aside from using the "Book", how might I investigate a resurrection claim? And I already acknowledged we have 66 books and 40 authors to make up this entire "Book". However, where the NT is concerned, the Gospels are likely writings about what others believed. Hence, these are not independent eyewitnesses to anything other than witnessing what others believe. Hell, any of us today can surely witness countless believers to a resurrection.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #116

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Exactly. Like I stated in the previous response, for which you omitted, I guess we can add (L)egend to the list to the theist trilemma argument.
You can add it. I will add "because it was true".
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Sure, wherever he was... But like I stated prior, for which you also ignored... Christians state the story spread really fast and wide.
It isn't a matter of Christians merely stating stuff...that is what history tells us, that Christianity spread throughout the empire.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Paul cannot be in all places at once.
No, but what he can do (along with others) is travel extensively, and send letters/epistles to areas of which he was unable to reach at that time, which is what he obviously did.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Unless you would like to now suggest he had magical powers too?
Sure, you can call the Holy Spirit "magical". I can dig it.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Since we do not know who the Gospel writers are, we have no clue from where they got their source information?
Nonsense. Even if you knew who the Gospels writers were, you would probably be asking any variation of "how do we know where X person got his information from"?

This is classic goal post movement and the skepticism would continue.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
"We cannot know what was originally written, and by whom?"
We cannot know conclusively who "wrote" anything in antiquity.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
"Oh please.." what? Do you know who wrote the Gospels? I'll answer for you. No.
"We cannot know conclusively who "wrote" anything in antiquity".
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
I'm afraid it's quite important. Please stop avoiding the the math. I'll answer for you, since you continue to avoid here....
I'm not avoiding anything. I am merely pointing out its irrelevance. Who cares how old the person was? How old was Jesse Jackson when he witnessed MLK get assassinated? It doesn't matter if he was age 9 or 39, either he was there when it happened or he wasn't.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Again, you have no starting point. We do not know who wrote the Gospels, and exactly what year.
"We cannot know conclusively who "wrote" anything in antiquity"
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am We have a suspected range for Mark, which is around 65-80AD. Then the rest of the Gospels are quite a bit later.
Who is "we"? Well, the "we" on my side of things have a suspected range also...which is any time before 70AD, with the exception of John's Gospel.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Based upon the math, it highly unlikely the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, since they were all likely already dead.
Apparently, despite my best efforts, I am unable to make you understand the difference between when a story originated, and when the story was placed in print (written down).

But hey, I tried.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
You do not want to consider it, because doing so would/could cause great damage to your argument.
Oh, is that it? I knew I was leaving something out. *snaps finger*
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Ah, I was wondering when you were going to say this...

When a claim from antiquity is made, knowing WHO wrote it is not always important. It depends on the claim, and what other variables we can investigate.

But in the case for a resurrection claim, or any one time claimed miraculous event, it's good to know who wrote what, and what was their source(s)? Being that it is a claim which required 'eyewitnesses...' Since we do not know who wrote them, when, and where they received their information, we have no known starting point?
So basically, "I will make exceptions to the standard whenever it suits my fancy".

Thats what I got out of it.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am I mean, it's not like we are exploring the claims of a flood, an exodus from Egypt claim, or other, where we may have other stuff to go upon. If we were able to discover that 2M Jews did escape Egypt, then we might not care who wrote about it. But a claimed one time miraculous event, which leaves behind no evidence, cannot really be investigated without eyewitnesses at least?
Sure, and then you would be a Christian, huh?
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
This is not my first rodeo buddy. I'm aware of what you claim. Please read what I stated... Are the number of copies any more significant, if the original story is incorrect? If it should turn out we have 20 millions early copies of the Rig Veda, would that matter? Prolly not. You do not accept/believe the source claims. And it;s likely not because they don't possess the most copies.
Nonsense. Because even if we had the original manuscripts, you would still question the validity of the original material, and it would be "just because we have the original story, doesn't mean the original story is correct".

See? This isn't about believing, this is about systematically rejecting all evidences, regardless of how credible it is.

If the original manuscripts were discovered, I doubt you would be no more closer to believing than you are now. It would be just one more thing to become skeptical of.

I know the game, and watch it unfold.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
So this makes a minimum of two non-eyewitnesses, for where we have no clue of where they obtained their information?
I have an idea of where Mark got his information from...from Peter, who was his friend.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Doh! You stepped right into this one... The earliest full copies are discovered to be -- (simple search):

"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."

Sorry, I was being generous. The full copies did not start popping up until about 300 years later. Oppsie :)
Oppsie? Not so fast. First off, just because the full copies were discovered around 200, says NOTHING about when the full copy was first written.

Otzi the iceman was "discovered" 32 years ago, but he had died some 5,000 years ago, so obviously the discovery has nothing to do with the event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi#Discovery

So, "gotcha" moment...FAILED.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Well, then you are presenting a straw-man. Good job. This is not what I mean at all.

- Especially during these times, did churches present political and/or social bias?
- Did the church vote upon what was to be canonized, and what is to be left out?
- Did any punishment take place, for non-conformists?
- Did the church canonize the Gospels while any eyewitnesses were still alive to cross reference?
- Are the 4 accounts even consistent?
- Can you see the (L)egend growing, with more and more 'magic', as you read from Mark to John?
Do yourself a favor, read up on the canonization of the Gospels and then get back to me.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Then the Kalam is even more irrelevant.
Knee jerk response with no substance. I quelled an attempted "gotcha" moment, yet again.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Since you and I are not cosmologists, lets ask one... Hey Dr. Carroll, did the universe begin to exist?

Do I need to provide a youtube link of a cosmologist who states that the universe began to exist?
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
We've made many discoveries of prior unknowns. And none of which have revealed any god pulling the strings. But like I said, keep your fingers crossed for the remaining unknowns.
Probably because science cannot know whether anything is beyond its physical constraints.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Great. Let me sum up your argument for you, about knowing if the 'Holy Spirit' communicates with you, verses listening to 'evil'...

You are influenced by 'evil' if you do not whip your kids, if you allow women to lead in church, of you detest slavery on any and every level without exception, think homosexually is amoral or okay, etc.....
If that is what the Bible says, then that is what the Bible says.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #117

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Exactly. Like I stated in the previous response, for which you omitted, I guess we can add (L)egend to the list to the theist trilemma argument.
You can add it. I will add "because it was true".
Kool. Thanks for not trying to continue to straw-man the liar argument upon me.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Sure, wherever he was... But like I stated prior, for which you also ignored... Christians state the story spread really fast and wide.
It isn't a matter of Christians merely stating stuff...that is what history tells us, that Christianity spread throughout the empire.

No, but what he can do (along with others) is travel extensively, and send letters/epistles to areas of which he was unable to reach at that time, which is what he obviously did.
Right, and Paul, or anyone else for that matter, could not be the perpetual gatekeeper to all the floating gossip. You know, how you already admitted that oral tradition is synonymous to the telephone game.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Unless you would like to now suggest he had magical powers too?
Sure, you can call the Holy Spirit "magical". I can dig it.
Seriously... Are you suggesting that Paul was able to auto-correct all the ('town gossip' / 'telephone games' / 'oral traditions') which were not to his liking?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Since we do not know who the Gospel writers are, we have no clue from where they got their source information?
Nonsense. Even if you knew who the Gospels writers were, you would probably be asking any variation of "how do we know where X person got his information from"?

This is classic goal post movement and the skepticism would continue.
You are saying this to provide a red herring. Well, I'm not chasing your fallacious argument...

Back on track...

Do you know who wrote the Gospels, and from where exactly they obtained their source information? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
"We cannot know what was originally written, and by whom?"
We cannot know conclusively who "wrote" anything in antiquity.
Correct. But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event. Without verified eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence to really address, (regarding a sighting of seeing a post-mortem event), antiquity here looks to present quite an issue. And this was Jesus's preferred method to spread truth?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am I'm afraid it's quite important. Please stop avoiding the the math. I'll answer for you, since you continue to avoid here....
I'm not avoiding anything. I am merely pointing out its irrelevance. Who cares how old the person was? How old was Jesse Jackson when he witnessed MLK get assassinated? It doesn't matter if he was age 9 or 39, either he was there when it happened or he wasn't.
This is not my argument. My argument is that they were likely already gone/dead/kaput.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am We have a suspected range for Mark, which is around 65-80AD. Then the rest of the Gospels are quite a bit later.
Who is "we"? Well, the "we" on my side of things have a suspected range also...which is any time before 70AD, with the exception of John's Gospel.
In regards to Mark, you just regurgitated the time-span I already listed (i.e.) 65-80. Feel free to run with 65. The author was still likely not an eyewitness, or a friend. They were likely dead. To think otherwise suggest a higher amount of 'faith'.

And if Mark was written first, then it really does not matter when John was written. The situation is still the same. All eyewitnesses, and their friends, dead.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Based upon the math, it highly unlikely the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, since they were all likely already dead.
Apparently, despite my best efforts, I am unable to make you understand the difference between when a story originated, and when the story was placed in print (written down).

But hey, I tried.
Which 'story'? Again, unless you can demonstrate that Paul was the gatekeeper to all exaggerated/false/mistaken/incorrect gossip, we do not know what 'story', and who wrote it?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Ah, I was wondering when you were going to say this...

When a claim from antiquity is made, knowing WHO wrote it is not always important. It depends on the claim, and what other variables we can investigate.

But in the case for a resurrection claim, or any one time claimed miraculous event, it's good to know who wrote what, and what was their source(s)? Being that it is a claim which required 'eyewitnesses...' Since we do not know who wrote them, when, and where they received their information, we have no known starting point?
So basically, "I will make exceptions to the standard whenever it suits my fancy".
Again with the red herring. Not gonna chase it...

I repeat:

In the case for a resurrection claim, or any one time claimed miraculous event, it's good to know who wrote what, and what was their source(s)? Being that it is a claim which required 'eyewitnesses...' Since we do not know who wrote them, when, and where they received their information, we have no known starting point?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am I mean, it's not like we are exploring the claims of a flood, an exodus from Egypt claim, or other, where we may have other stuff to go upon. If we were able to discover that 2M Jews did escape Egypt, then we might not care who wrote about it. But a claimed one time miraculous event, which leaves behind no evidence, cannot really be investigated without eyewitnesses at least?
Sure, and then you would be a Christian, huh?
If all the stories, which we were able to investigate, happened to be true, as they were told from the Bible, maybe I would have remained a Christian. Please remember, I was a Christian first.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am This is not my first rodeo buddy. I'm aware of what you claim. Please read what I stated... Are the number of copies any more significant, if the original story is incorrect? If it should turn out we have 20 millions early copies of the Rig Veda, would that matter? Prolly not. You do not accept/believe the source claims. And it's likely not because they don't possess the most copies.
Nonsense. Because even if we had the original manuscripts, you would still question the validity of the original material, and it would be "just because we have the original story, doesn't mean the original story is correct".

See? This isn't about believing, this is about systematically rejecting all evidences, regardless of how credible it is.

If the original manuscripts were discovered, I doubt you would be no more closer to believing than you are now. It would be just one more thing to become skeptical of.

I know the game, and watch it unfold.
Another red herring argument. What 'credible evidence'? We have no originals, and the Gospel authors are anonymous.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
So this makes a minimum of two non-eyewitnesses, for where we have no clue of where they obtained their information?
I have an idea of where Mark got his information from...from Peter, who was his friend.
An idea ain't gonna cut it. You do not know. We are only speaking about the largest claim in human history. Need a bit more than this, I'm afraid.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Doh! You stepped right into this one... The earliest full copies are discovered to be -- (simple search):

"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."

Sorry, I was being generous. The full copies did not start popping up until about 300 years later. Oppsie :)
Oppsie? Not so fast. First off, just because the full copies were discovered around 200, says NOTHING about when the full copy was first written.

Otzi the iceman was "discovered" 32 years ago, but he had died some 5,000 years ago, so obviously the discovery has nothing to do with the event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi#Discovery

So, "gotcha" moment...FAILED.
If we do not have full copies, of chapters, prior to 200, how do we know there exists full copies, prior to 200? I'll start first, to get things going... Here is the earliest partial finding thus far, Papyrus P52 (125-175AD). Spoiler alert... Its the size on an index card.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that we come across completed ones, dating all the way back to when things were first being placed to paper. We can then compare them to the presumed first copies we have now. But until then, 'faith'; as it states you must have several times in the Bible.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Well, then you are presenting a straw-man. Good job. This is not what I mean at all.

- Especially during these times, did churches present political and/or social bias?
- Did the church vote upon what was to be canonized, and what is to be left out?
- Did any punishment take place, for non-conformists?
- Did the church canonize the Gospels while any eyewitnesses were still alive to cross reference?
- Are the 4 accounts even consistent?
- Can you see the (L)egend growing, with more and more 'magic', as you read from Mark to John?
Do yourself a favor, read up on the canonization of the Gospels and then get back to me.
For starters, are you saying the 'church' did not decide what to canonize, and what not to canonize, in the 4th century?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Then the Kalam is even more irrelevant.
Knee jerk response with no substance. I quelled an attempted "gotcha" moment, yet again.
Is God 'first cause', or not?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am Since you and I are not cosmologists, lets ask one... Hey Dr. Carroll, did the universe begin to exist?

Do I need to provide a youtube link of a cosmologist who states that the universe began to exist?
You could, but you do not need to. Did you at least listen to what he says? He states it is not known. Many cosmologists have differing hypotheses.

Hence, to shoehorn in a known to P2 of the Kalam requires that you know what all cosmologists don't. Maybe you can go to the next cosmology convention, as set them all straight, with your Kalam argument, for which I'm sure none of them thought to consider ;) Oh, and let me know when you decide to. I'll bring the popcorn.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
We've made many discoveries of prior unknowns. And none of which have revealed any god pulling the strings. But like I said, keep your fingers crossed for the remaining unknowns.
Probably because science cannot know whether anything is beyond its physical constraints.
We don't know yet, "therefore god." Classic fallacious reasoning...
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:29 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:22 am
Great. Let me sum up your argument for you, about knowing if the 'Holy Spirit' communicates with you, verses listening to 'evil'...

You are influenced by 'evil' if you do not whip your kids, if you allow women to lead in church, of you detest slavery on any and every level without exception, think homosexually is amoral or okay, etc.....
If that is what the Bible says, then that is what the Bible says.
Glad we settled one topic :) You agree with whipping children as a sign of love, think slavery is a-okay, think women leadership in church is bad, and you detest gay people.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #118

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Kool. Thanks for not trying to continue to straw-man the liar argument upon me.
I see you are still confused about what the liar thing was all about. Oh well, can't help everyone.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Right, and Paul, or anyone else for that matter, could not be the perpetual gatekeeper to all the floating gossip. You know, how you already admitted that oral tradition is synonymous to the telephone game.
Well, when you can tell me what floating gossip was floating around during that time (that Paul missed), then it will be considered.

Until then, we have what we have, which is Paul traveling and writing to the many congregations throughout the empire, and quelling any false stuff that was even beginning to surface.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Seriously... Are you suggesting that Paul was able to auto-correct all the ('town gossip' / 'telephone games' / 'oral traditions') which were not to his liking?
If it was brought to his attention (which it more than likely would have been), then yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
You are saying this to provide a red herring. Well, I'm not chasing your fallacious argument...
Yeah, ok. Touched a nerve there, didn't I?
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm Back on track...

Do you know who wrote the Gospels, and from where exactly they obtained their source information? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no.
I don't "know" who wrote anything in antiquity.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Correct. But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event. Without verified eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence to really address, (regarding a sighting of seeing a post-mortem event), antiquity here looks to present quite an issue.
And as I stated previously, if we had eyewitness testimony of X amount of people (besides the ones of whom I believe we currently have), I doubt that you would be any closer to becoming a Christian.

So the point is, it doesn't matter what we have/don't have...from your side of things.

My side of things is; we have what we have, and it is enough to convince us (believers).
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm And this was Jesus's preferred method to spread truth?
It was spread, wasn't it? So apparently, it worked.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
This is not my argument. My argument is that they were likely already gone/dead/kaput.
And my argument is that they were alive.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
In regards to Mark, you just regurgitated the time-span I already listed (i.e.) 65-80. Feel free to run with 65. The author was still likely not an eyewitness, or a friend. They were likely dead. To think otherwise suggest a higher amount of 'faith'.
Again, you still dont appear to know the difference between when a story originated, and when it was written.

I've explained it to you about 3 times, and you still don't get it...or want to get it.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm And if Mark was written first, then it really does not matter when John was written.
Mark's Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with John's Gospel.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm The situation is still the same. All eyewitnesses, and their friends, dead.
And you still don't get it. SMH.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Which 'story'?
If you have to ask, then this raises a troubling question.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm Again, unless you can demonstrate that Paul was the gatekeeper to all exaggerated/false/mistaken/incorrect gossip, we do not know what 'story', and who wrote it?
Demonstrate it? Read his epistles and you tell me.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm Again with the red herring. Not gonna chase it...

I repeat:

In the case for a resurrection claim, or any one time claimed miraculous event, it's good to know who wrote what, and what was their source(s)? Being that it is a claim which required 'eyewitnesses...' Since we do not know who wrote them, when, and where they received their information, we have no known starting point?
And I repeat: We don't "know" who wrote anything in antiquity.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
If all the stories, which we were able to investigate, happened to be true, as they were told from the Bible, maybe I would have remained a Christian. Please remember, I was a Christian first.
"happened to be true", and how would you "know" if something from 2000 years ago "happened" to be true?

Nonsense.

Please remember, according to the Bible, no true Christian would leave the faith.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Another red herring argument. What 'credible evidence'? We have no originals, and the Gospel authors are anonymous.
We have no "originals" of any ancient work of literature.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
An idea ain't gonna cut it. You do not know. We are only speaking about the largest claim in human history. Need a bit more than this, I'm afraid.
I also don't "know" if Caesar was stabbed, either. All I know is what history tells me.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm If we do not have full copies, of chapters, prior to 200, how do we know there exists full copies, prior to 200? I'll start first, to get things going... Here is the earliest partial finding thus far, Papyrus P52 (125-175AD). Spoiler alert... Its the size on an index card.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that we come across completed ones, dating all the way back to when things were first being placed to paper. We can then compare them to the presumed first copies we have now. But until then, 'faith'; as it states you must have several times in the Bible.
Hmm. That's interesting. Well, we have Papias, who was an early church father and the guy of whom we get our info from, as far as Mark being Peter's friend and writing a Gospel is concerned.

You see, Papias died around 163 AD, and he stated (according to Eusebius), that Mark wrote a Gospel.

So if Papias died around 163 AD (which means that he was a very old man, having been born in 70AD, go figure), and he speaks of Mark writing a Gospel, that would mean that a full Gospel of Mark was in existence prior to 163 AD.

So please, kill the 200AD nonsense.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm For starters, are you saying the 'church' did not decide what to canonize, and what not to canonize, in the 4th century?
I never said, implied, nor even HINTED that...so why are you asking me such a question?
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Is God 'first cause', or not?
Yes, and I think I made that point very clear.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
You could, but you do not need to. Did you at least listen to what he says? He states it is not known. Many cosmologists have differing hypotheses.
Yeah, that kinda was my point, sir.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm Hence, to shoehorn in a known to P2 of the Kalam requires that you know what all cosmologists don't. Maybe you can go to the next cosmology convention, as set them all straight, with your Kalam argument, for which I'm sure none of them thought to consider ;) Oh, and let me know when you decide to. I'll bring the popcorn.
Wait a minute, you just stated that "many cosmologists have differing hypothesis", which means that some cosmologists believe that the universe began to exist, contrary to Carroll stating that it is not known.

So this is not a matter of me knowing what cosmologists don't. This is a matter of some cosmologists having a different view of the universe and the science behind it, than Carroll.

Second, the argument against infinite regress is independent of science...so why Carroll may conclude that it is unknown whether the universe began to exist based on science, that says nothing about whether the universe began to exist (or not), based on philosophy.

Two different fields.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
We don't know yet, "therefore god." Classic fallacious reasoning...
More like "we do know; it was God".

I don't hold to the "we don't know" idea, sir.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Glad we settled one topic :) You agree with whipping children as a sign of love, think slavery is a-okay, think women leadership in church is bad, and you detest gay people.
Ok, now that that is settled, lets move along, shall we.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #119

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am I already acknowledged that point.
Next.
So we agree the gospels authors are anonymous and not eyewitness testimonies. Good.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am Depending on who you talk to. A case can be made that all Gospels (besides John) was written prior to 70AD.

We can all provide our little quotes from our sources...I can provide sources of whom agree with me..so posting these little quote excerpts won't get us anywhere.

As I stated, a case can be made for my side of things...and it was made, and I agree with it.
Q: What’s up with Wikipedia? With the sources I provided?
Surely Wikipedia its not biased against the religious.


“Mark, the earliest gospel, was likely written just after the destruction of the second Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E, and was known by both Matthew and Luke when they undertook the task of producing their own narratives.
The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century. The Gospel of John, dated between 80 and 110 C.E. is first attested in a highly fragmentary papyrus, dated to 125-150 C.E”

https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754

The above used the work of François Bovon, Brown Raymond, James R. Edwards, Ehrman Bart D., Bruce M. Metzger.
Problems:

1. You have the issue of later gospels being inspired by Mark gospel. Therefore the whole multiple testimonies giving credence to the supposed miracle is put into question.
The term ‘synoptic problem’ refers to the fact that when the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are laid in parallel and read synoptically (‘with the same eye’), it becomes evident that there is a literary dependency among them. A technical analysis of the texts shows that Mark was the original and that Matthew and Luke were written independently, based on Mark.
“Synoptic problem

“The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the Synoptic Problem. It is widely accepted that this was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.[21] “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

2. You have the issue with the gospels in that the earliest copies we have date to the late 2nd century while most of them are even much later.

3. Oral circulation:
Scholars agree that before (and even after) the Gospels were written, early Christians relied primarily, if not exclusively, on oral traditions for their information about Jesus.
With oral transmission one has the problem of keeping the story as reliably close to the original. Word of mouth transmission of information is inherently unreliable.
Humans psychic is a weak thing prone to false memories, bad memory recollection, peer affirmation, bias, power of suggestion, pareidolia and other such deficiencies.



Oral traditions and the formation of the gospels
“Modern scholars[who?] have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:
1. The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.
2. In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate
3. In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
4. In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]
Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Marcan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]
Oral transmission may also be seen as a different approach to understanding the Synoptic Gospels in New Testament scholarship. Current theories attempt to link the three synoptic gospels together through a common textual tradition. However, many problems arise when linking these three texts together (see the Synoptic problem). This has led many scholars to hypothesize the existence of a fourth document from which Matthew and Luke drew upon independently of each other (for example, the Q source).[17] The Oral Transmission hypothesis based on the oral tradition steps away from this model, proposing instead that this common, shared tradition was transmitted orally rather than through a lost document.[18] “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_gospel_traditions

4.
“Recent scholars are complicating the conversation by taking a closer look at the stages by which "Gospels" moved from oral tradition to "notes" (in Greek, hypomnemata) to "unfinished" texts with limited circulation to "finished" or "published" texts with broader circulation. And even at that late stage, those "finished" texts were interpolated, abbreviated, and otherwise modified (intentionally and unintentionally) in the following centuries. Our modern, printed Gospels are translations of Greek "critical editions." That means that no ancient manuscript looks exactly like the Greek text from which our translations are made. The critical editions based on scholars' best guesses, weighing all the available evidence, as to what was found in the "original" and "finished" (both problematic terms) versions of the text.”

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am I will stick to my 55-65 age range around the mid to late 60s AD.
Q: Of whom you speak? Please don’t be vague?

Q: And why?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am First off, how old Mark was irrelevant. He was old enough to be the source of the material, that is how old he was.

Second, considering the fact that tradition has Mark, a FRIEND of Peter as being the source of the written Gospel...that in itself gives credibility to the claim that Mark wrote it.

After all, instead of claiming that Peter wrote it..they basically said that Peter didn't write it, but his FRIEND wrote it.

Why not just say Peter wrote it? Peter's name would obviously carry more weight than Mark's. That kind of sincerity/honesty goes a long way with me.
How credible? Paul mentions Luke (and Mark) himself (Philemon 1:23-24)..

23 Epaphras, my hfellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

And again, even according to your own sources, Philemon's authorship is considered authentic...so, kill that noise.
Again, it all comes from the early Church. We don't have a history of them quarreling about the Gospels authorship, because it was probably accepted as a known fact, regardless of what skeptics some 2,000 years later on debating forums (and elsewhere) have to say about the matter.
The age the writers wrote is relevant for example:
Scenario showing the issue:
If Peter was 30-40 years old(most likely) at the death of Jesus he would have been 90-110 years old at the time of the gospel of Mark was supposed to have originated.

An idea that Peter died in spring 44 AD:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262446

If Peter lived to mere 50s or 60s he would have been dead for 30-50 years at the time the Gospel of “Mark” supposed to have originated. Therefore if the writer of “Mark” was 30 when he wrote the gospel he could not have been friend with Peter.
The overlap of the persons is therefore not guaranteed.
You have the same issue with the others.

Observation to readers: We do not have a manuscript of “Mark” gospel dating in the normal sense. Dating refers to the most probable time of when it was written after analysing the available information.

Paul mentioning Luke as friend does logically lead to therefore Paul was friend to the writer of the gospel of Luke. It’s a non-sequitur.

Provide something outside your own words to back up this please: “that tradition has Mark, a FRIEND of Peter as being the source of the written Gospel...that in itself gives credibility to the claim that Mark wrote it.”

Please provide all the evidence you have connecting apostles with the writers of the gospels.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am Again, it all comes from the early Church. We don't have a history of them quarreling about the Gospels authorship, because it was probably accepted as a known fact, regardless of what skeptics some 2,000 years later on debating forums (and elsewhere) have to say about the matter.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am Because they were not considered inspired and were actually written centuries later and could not have possibly been derived from apostles or friends of the apostles.

It was selective process and not every alleged "Gospel of" book would make the playoffs.

This is something that I expect people from your camp (skeptics) to appreciate...because, one of the primary objections of the Gospels validity is the fact that they were allegedly written decades/centuries after the fact (which is untrue, anyway).

But some those non-canonical books were actually written centuries later, and that is why they were rejected as part of the canon...so the fact that they were rejected for those same very reasons that most skeptics reject the actual canon, which is something I am sure you can appreciate.
8 of them conform Wikipedia were written early 2nd c.
Matthew and Luke and John conform Wikipedia were written around (AD 85–90, AD 90–110).
So John was possibly early second century.
So late first century(canonical: Matthew and Luke and possibly John) or early 2nd c(non-canonical and possible John).
Its not centuries later as you seem to imply. But decades in difference.
The reason does not seem as logical as you first assume considering the above.

So I ask again:

Q: What about the Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels(written early 2nd c)? What's up with them? Why was their perspective is not included?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:55 am Again, it all comes from the early Church. We don't have a history of them quarreling about the Gospels authorship, because it was probably accepted as a known fact, regardless of what skeptics some 2,000 years later on debating forums (and elsewhere) have to say about the matter.
You said "I already acknowledged that point." meaning "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."
Q: Are you contradicting yourself? :?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #120

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #114]

You can have the last word here...and I will take the dub (W).

I have bigger fish to fry.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply