The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent “fine tuning�, and others, which has brought the world’s most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[Haven]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

I'm not aware of any non-theist, except Richard Carrier, who claims this. The vast majority of non-theists, myself included, stick with the intellectually honest position that we simply do not know what, if anything, caused the universe to begin to exist (if it did indeed begin to exist).

At any rate, the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is logically impossible. An external agent cannot act upon "nothing" (the absence of any thing) to create something, because nothing has no properties from which to create something. The notion of a being exerting a causal force upon nothing and creating something is incoherent, because, as should be obvious, this is identical with not exerting a causal force on anything, that is, not causing anything.

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

No. The universe is fine tuned for life the way a hole is fine tuned for the puddle that fills it. Life evolved to suit the parameters of the universe, and, even in light of this, the vast, vast majority of the universe is inimical to life. If anything, the universe is fine tuned for dark matter, dark energy, and hydrogen, as that is what fills the vast, vast majority of it.

Your view also assumes that this universe is the only one that exists, but that is far from certain. Perhaps our cosmos is simply one of an infinite number of universe, in which case the development of life in at least one spacetime is certain. It also assumes that backward causation is impossible, but -- assuming the B theory of time and quantum mechanics -- backward causation is both logically and physically possible.

I'll address your other points later.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher].

I think you present some good evidence, but the assertion that God exists is easier to support I think, than any assertion that Jesus is God's Unique and only begotten Son.

Even given the evidence of the empty tomb, even if Jesus WAS resurrected, (which I do have an open mind about) it does not prove the Divinity or Jesus. The Resurrection if it happened, could be entirely the work of the Father, who (in theory) can choose to resurrect anyone he pleases.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

The biggest problem I've ever encountered with non-theists is their strict adherence to fact based debate.

I'll endeavor, long as dear Mr. Gish lets me, to render these disparate arguments OP presents, into something that resembles reason.

[Haven]

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

This is a highly disputed point within ancient history and Biblical studies, the two academic fields most concerned with this question. Although most scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure (although several, such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier, believe Jesus was not historical), the majority of non-evangelical scholars (including, but by no means limited to, J.D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Geza Vermes, and Bart Ehrman) feel that the New Testament accounts relay little accurate information concerning this man's life.

It is also the consensus among historians and Biblical scholars that the NT accounts are filled with myths and legends surrounding Jesus' life, and that the accounts contain a number of historical inaccuracies.

To claim that it is a "fact" that Jesus was historical and that the NT accounts are at least semi-reliable is dubious at best, completely false at worst.

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -

There is zero evidence that the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) are independent, and the vast, vast majority of scholars -- including some fundamentalists -- accept that Luke and Matthew used Mark and a no-longer-existing source called Q to construct their accounts. Therefore, they are not independent. The only gospel independent of those three is John, which was written much later (~95 CE), contains more legendary accretion (presenting Jesus as a god, rather than a mere prophet), and contains numerous points of contradiction with the synoptics (including Jesus' time of crucifixion, among other things).

- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves).

The evidence for this is identical to the current temperature in South Dakota: zero. All of the earliest manuscripts of every gospel are in the Greek language, and there is no evidence that they have been translated from Aramaic. In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever that any sources contributing to the gospels were dated to "within 1-2 years of Jesus' life." Most scholars agree Q, the earliest possibly written source (based, allegedly, on Jesus' sayings) dates back to ~40-80 CE, a good 10-50 years after Jesus' alleged death.

While it is possible that there may have been some oral traditions dating back to an earlier period, there is no evidence for this and it would be irrelevant to the central question -- the reliability of the Jesus story. After all, urban legends can spin up, spread rapidly, and become widely believed within days, but they are by no means even remotely accurate accounts.

Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.

Unfortunately for the believer, no historical sources "like that" (independent, unbiased, in the original language) exist for the Jesus story.

Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life

If by "a couple years," you mean 25 years, then yes (and this assumes Jesus was historical in the first place, which is far from certain).

and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

First of all, your point goes against the Catholic doctrine that Jesus had no siblings (because Mary was an eternal virgin), which is problematic for you.

With that aside, Paul disputed heavily with James, and there is no evidence they ever made up or came to a consensus on theological matters. Also, this point is irrelevant to the truth of the Jesus story, as simply knowing people who were close to an alleged miracle worker does not provide evidence that the person actually performed miracles. For instance, many of David Koresh's followers are still alive today and still insist that David Koresh was a god, but this, in no way, provides evidence that Koresh actually performed miracles.

If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......

Unless, of course, the person known as James was lying to advance an agenda. Lying is an extremely common occurrence, and is a far more rational answer to the Jesus question than one that would require the suspension of the function of logic and the laws of physics, as well as the abandonment of every shred of scientific knowledge we have amassed over the past 400 years.

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing[/color]

I'm not aware of any non-theist, except Richard Carrier, who claims this. The vast majority of non-theists, myself included, stick with the intellectually honest position that we simply do not know what, if anything, caused the universe to begin to exist (if it did indeed begin to exist).

The intellectually honest position is that the universe began to exist out of nothing. That much we do know for certain. What is unclear is what caused the universe to begin to exist. Christians say God, nonbelievers like Lawrence Krauss appeal to quantum mechanics.

At any rate, the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is logically impossible. An external agent cannot act upon "nothing" (the absence of any thing) to create something, because nothing has no properties from which to create something. The notion of a being exerting a causal force upon nothing and creating something is incoherent, because, as should be obvious, this is identical with not exerting a causal force on anything, that is, not causing anything.

You do realize that this problem you're bringing up completely invalidates the argument being made by nontheists, right? How is it possible for something to come out of nothing without the intervention of an external agent? This problem about something coming from nothing is actually resolved if you posit an external, supernatural entity.

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life.

No. The universe is fine tuned for life the way a hole is fine tuned for the puddle that fills it. Life evolved to suit the parameters of the universe, and, even in light of this, the vast, vast majority of the universe is inimical to life. If anything, the universe is fine tuned for dark matter, dark energy, and hydrogen, as that is what fills the vast, vast majority of it.

I've addressed many of your points in the fine tuning thread and don't really see the need repeat what I said here. I'd much rather focus on the section of your post that deals with the New Testament and the historicity of Jesus. But, I'll leave you with a few points to consider and I would suggest that you read the two quotations I provided in the topic. If the universe were altered only slightly, life would not be able to exist. You have not dealt with this fact at all. Secondly, the universe may be finely tuned to support numerous things, including dark matter, dark energy, etc. Who cares? This is a non sequitor. Btw, I would like to see some support for this. If the constants and forces of the universe were slightly altered would it result in the destruction of dark matter and dark energy?

[Joab]

[Replying to post 6 by WinePusher]

If the constants and forces of the universe were slightly altered would it result in the destruction of LIFE or of life as you know it?

[orthodox skeptic]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Your dramatic proclamation of Jesus being an historical "Fact", leaves me asking...'who said he wasn't?' Historians acknowledge him as a minor historical character. It is the Bible which elevates him...a tome which is, unfortunately for believers, one of the most criticized texts of all time.
relative to the Resurrection stories I refer you to John Shelby Spong's, "Liberating the Gospels. (Spong is a recognized theologian and scholar). He says, "The burial stories are so inconsistent" (the synoptic writers give contradictory renditions) "as to be dismissable on those grounds alone. A convicted felon in first century Judea who was publically executed would have been taken down and buried in a shallow, unmarked common grave. The realization of this fate by early Christians was so hurtful that it led to the creation of the comforting legends of a proper tomb and burial."
It should be remembered that Jesus was tried and convicted by the Roman authority for sedition...a crime against the state thus the felon classification.
As for the women seeing the risen Jesus, Mark said no; Matthew said yes; Luke said no' John said it was only Magdalene who went to the tomb.
The one consistency in the Easter narratives is that the disciples had deserted him and none were in attendance at the crucifixion which adds further doubt to the burial myth.

[Haven]

The intellectually honest position is that the universe began to exist out of nothing. That much we do know for certain.

No. It's entirely possible that this universe is eternal in some form (arising from a singularity), began to exist from some pre-existent material (such as a previous universe), was backward-caused by some later event, or is simply a simulation created by a programmer. To state as fact that the universe began to exist from nothing is to make an erroneous claim. We do not know for certain the ultimate origin of the universe, and to claim that we do is to misrepresent the situation.

What is unclear is what caused the universe to begin to exist. Christians say God, nonbelievers like Lawrence Krauss appeal to quantum mechanics.

Prof. Krauss doesn't claim the universe began from literal nothingness, but instead from a kind of quantum vacuum which he (philosophically inaccurately) labels "nothing." His view, by the way, is hardly the majority among "non-believers" (which I assume you're using as a synonym for non-Christians, which makes your assertion even more absurd).

You do realize that this problem you're bringing up completely invalidates the argument being made by nontheists, right?

What argument being made by non-theists? The majority of non-theists claim ignorance as to the ultimate origin of the universe, and I, in particular, have not claimed the universe began from nothing (although I don't consider myself an atheist). Please stop attacking straw men.

How is it possible for something to come out of nothing without the intervention of an external agent?

How can an external agent causally act upon nothing (i.e., not causally act upon anything)? The very idea is incoherent.

Whether or not there is an external agent here is irrelevant: to create something from literally nothing is incoherent.

This problem about something coming from nothing is actually resolved if you posit an external, supernatural entity.

emphasis mine

Magic (the ability to violate logical principles, which would be necessary to create ex nihiilo) is not a viable explanation for anything, it is simply a childlike response to questions to which one has no answer. You can explain flying reindeer by magic, but that in no way means flying reindeer actually exist or are logically possible.

See my comments above. It doesn't matter whether or not there is an external agent, causally acting upon nothing is incoherent; it literally means doing nothing.

If the universe were altered only slightly, life would not be able to exist.

If things were different, things would be different. Perhaps a new form of life would exist, or perhaps not. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the question of theism.

[Haven]

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

This "fact" is like the other three: not a fact at all.

Keep in mind that this "fact" assumes Jesus was historical, which is in dispute.

Still, even assuming that, the idea that there was an empty tomb is highly dubious. Nonfundamentalist scholars are heavily divided on whether there was a tomb at all (with J.D. Crossan, notably, claiming there was not), because it would have been highly unusual for the victim of a Roman crucifixion to be buried. Most such individuals were left to rot on their crosses or burned in a camp outside the town, so it would be reasonable to assume that a similar thing happened to Jesus. In addition, there is no physical evidence that Jesus was buried, as well as no secular sources reporting it.

If there were in fact a tomb, there would be no way to verify its emptiness, as Jewish graves of the time were unmarked and anonymous documents from religious followers are not enough to establish such a truth claim.

Even if there were an empty tomb, however, that in no way provides evidence for a resurrection. In fact, literally any naturalistic explanation (inclduing extremely improbable ones) would be more likely than an explanation that requires the suspension of the laws of identity and non-contradiction and the violation of essentially all physical laws.

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Once again, any natural explanation, no matter how improbable, convoluted, or far-fetched, is more likely than a magical one. This is because of the overwhelming philosophical and scientific support for a naturalistic understanding of reality and the complete lack of verifiable empirical evidence of magic or supernatural activity. Because of this, overwhelming empirical evidence is required to establish that a supernatural event occurred (as such an event would fly in the face of all background evidence), and no such evidence exists for the Jesus story.

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts.

What well-established facts? You've yet to provide one, let alone four.

In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

I'm not an atheist, so I'll have to let an atheist respond to this one.