Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #266]

I know the theist can't show their favored god had him a hand in any of it.

Aristotle did.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

Nonsense. The Bible is terrible as history by the standards of historians. The arguments attempting to equate it with the efforts of classical Greco-Roman historians are little more than contrived slippery slope arguments. I've dealt with this argument a few times in the past in this forum, but if you think you have new arguments, feel free to present them.

Not with the EarthScience guy.

What part of what I am saying are you saying is not correct? Are you trying to say that it is not written mainly as a narrative? Are you saying that the Bible was not actually describing the actions of individuals in historical events that were taking place? Are you saying that historians do not use individuals' letters to other people to acquire historical events that took place and to understand the language and culture of the day? Are you trying to say that the resurrection was not described as a historical event that actually took place?

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:19 pm
How does the Bible compare to other ancient literature?
Number of manuscript copies:
You're confusing your apologetic arguments. Number of extant copies is a measure of assurance that the words we have are reasonably close to the words as penned by the authors. No simple number of manuscripts, however, will turn the New Testament into good history. It's not a matter of how reliable our reconstructions of original texts are, but a genre discussion. I'm quite certain that my copy of Wind in the Willows matches the original, but I don't think that a historical Mr. Toad actually had a brand-new motorcar.

Do you know anyone that believes that "Mr. Toad actually had a brand-new motorcar"? Why is it that no one believes that Mr. Toad had a motorcar? Maybe because everyone knows that the book is a fictional work. People do not believe that the characters of Gone with the wind actually existed because it was written as a fictional story. Just like no one believes that there is a Luke Skywalker that can use the force to move things around and to control people's minds. (I made the Luke Skywalker comment just to see how many weirdos there are on here). In two thousand years of the earth is still around men may think that Gone with the wind and Star Wars are history. If how they were regarded in the century in which they were written is not known.

But this is not the case with the Bible. We know how people viewed the letters in the Bible not just in the same century but in the same decade in which it was written.

But I do wonder if Mr. Toad is related to the Mouse that had a motorcycle? Or maybe they were just part of the same motorcycle gang.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #269]

Now that is a significant claim that you will have to support. Please identify the authors and demonstrate that they were indeed eyewitnesses.

Are you saying that Jesus, James, Peter, John, Matthew, and Paul did not exist? If that is what you are trying to insinuate then the proof of burden is on you, because their existence is not even really debated in academic circles anymore.

James, Peter, John, Matthew, and Paul said they were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #267]

What meaningless words. If only you had a god on your side helping you to defeat the ungoldy here in debate. Would sure lend credence to the god of the Bible if followers debated like they had some help. Wouldn't prove the god persay, but it would sure be noted how Bible God followers seem better equipped. What a shame that such an opportunity is not taken by the said god. The god concept not existing would explain such a thing. It being a god of love for its creations doesn't.
Take from that what you will readers.

Did Jesus exist? I say that He did and so do most historians. So do you?

[Difflugia]

I've dealt with this argument a few times in the past in this forum, but if you think you have new arguments, feel free to present them.

Not with the EarthScience guy.

Feel free to present them.

What part of what I am saying are you saying is not correct? Are you trying to say that it is not written mainly as a narrative?

That it wasn't written mainly as a historical narrative, yes.

Are you saying that the Bible was not actually describing the actions of individuals in historical events that were taking place?

Yes.

Are you saying that historians do not use individuals' letters to other people to acquire historical events that took place and to understand the language and culture of the day?

No.

Are you trying to say that the resurrection was not described as a historical event that actually took place?

Yes.

Do you know anyone that believes that "Mr. Toad actually had a brand-new motorcar"?

No.

Why is it that no one believes that Mr. Toad had a motorcar? Maybe because everyone knows that the book is a fictional work.

Got it in one.

People do not believe that the characters of Gone with the wind actually existed because it was written as a fictional story. Just like no one believes that there is a Luke Skywalker that can use the force to move things around and to control people's minds. (I made the Luke Skywalker comment just to see how many weirdos there are on here).

That's right.

In two thousand years of the earth is still around men may think that Gone with the wind and Star Wars are history. If how they were regarded in the century in which they were written is not known.

Perhaps they might think that about Gone with the Wind. They probably won't Star Wars, though, because many of the plot devices are impossible.

But this is not the case with the Bible. We know how people viewed the letters in the Bible not just in the same century but in the same decade in which it was written.

No we don't. We know how some people viewed them in the second century and later.

But I do wonder if Mr. Toad is related to the Mouse that had a motorcycle? Or maybe they were just part of the same motorcycle gang.

Maybe. Kind of like how Elijah and Moses came back from the dead to visit Jesus. And start a motorcycle gang.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred. If you would like to claim that the Bible does not accurately claim what it says it is then we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity.

When one knows so little about who wrote the Bible stories and when they were written, it is presumptuous to claim anything about what it accurately describes or the motives of the authors in writing their narratives. I agree that we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity to any degree of certainty.

But how does any of it really matter when it does not have the same intended clout or impact as religious propaganda? If Julius Caesar didn't really exist or carry out any of his alleged exploits, so what? No one is demanding we completely run our lives around belief in that particular JC.

I don't see how any of that can shed light on the veracity of these ancient documents. Even if people since that time might have used the Bible for questionable motives that cannot in any way show that the documents themselves are not supernaturally inspired, do not refer to true historic events and so on. It really is irrelevant. To say that some books are a fabrication on the basis of how others have used those books is a fallacy.

As for the numbers of publications concerning different historical figures, what does that prove? Nothing.

Well it may not "prove" anything but it surely has some meaning, surely we can infer things from it, I doubt it really has no meaning, I doubt the prevalence of the NT for example is purely random.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #266]

I know the theist can't show their favored god had him a hand in any of it.

Aristotle did.

The cosmological argument?

"God did it" might be a profound proclamation to those who fail to understand that assertion ain't fact.

[Clownboat]

What meaningless words. If only you had a god on your side helping you to defeat the ungoldy here in debate. Would sure lend credence to the god of the Bible if followers debated like they had some help. Wouldn't prove the god persay, but it would sure be noted how Bible God followers seem better equipped. What a shame that such an opportunity is not taken by the said god. The god concept not existing would explain such a thing. It being a god of love for its creations doesn't.
Take from that what you will readers.

Did Jesus exist?

Most likely. Or at a minimum a man or men that some of these stories originated from. We can't know for certain though if we are being honest with ourselves.

I say that He did and so do most historians.

No issue with that. I and most historians would agree. Agreement does not equail certainty though of course.

So do you?

Clarified above.

Now that I answered your ever important questions, please keep this in mind while debating here:
The point is that no person should have to defend claims that they haven't made.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #269]

Now that is a significant claim that you will have to support. Please identify the authors and demonstrate that they were indeed eyewitnesses.

James, Peter, John, Matthew, and Paul said they were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.

No they didn't. We have stories written by anonymous authors. That's all. You have demonstrated nothing.

[brunumb]

The Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred. If you would like to claim that the Bible does not accurately claim what it says it is then we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity.

When one knows so little about who wrote the Bible stories and when they were written, it is presumptuous to claim anything about what it accurately describes or the motives of the authors in writing their narratives. I agree that we cannot know anything about what happened in antiquity to any degree of certainty.

But how does any of it really matter when it does not have the same intended clout or impact as religious propaganda? If Julius Caesar didn't really exist or carry out any of his alleged exploits, so what? No one is demanding we completely run our lives around belief in that particular JC.

I don't see how any of that can shed light on the veracity of these ancient documents. Even if people since that time might have used the Bible for questionable motives that cannot in any way show that the documents themselves are not supernaturally inspired, do not refer to true historic events and so on. It really is irrelevant. To say that some books are a fabrication on the basis of how others have used those books is a fallacy.

If you actually read the post I responded to and what I said you might realise that you are again creating a straw man to attack. EarthScienceguy made the claim "The Bible was written as a narrative describing events that occurred". Where have I made any of the claims you attributed to me and proceeded to attack? Can you support what EarthScienceguy claimed?