The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 45, 46, 47  Next

Reply to topic
liamconnor
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:08 am  Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again) Reply with quote

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection” that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence” simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI

Quote:
The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.


This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric”. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar” regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 391: Wed May 25, 2016 1:24 pm
Reply
Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Like this post
Clownboat wrote:

I think you misunderstand (or misrepresent) statistical considerations of the likelihood of our universe.


You can erroneously think whatever you like.

Clownboat wrote:

Imagine that the probability of getting any specific universe is 10^100000000000000 or whatever number you would like to claim. What would be the probability of getting a universe (any one)? It will be 1. Amazing huh? So, our universe is just the one that happened to materialize out of the 10^100000000000000 possible universes.


Right, and in ONE try. If you had a giant dice at which all of those possible universes was on placed on a side, which INCLUDES the one life permitting universe...and you only had ONE roll of the dice to land on the one life permitting universe under the same 10^10[10000000000000000000] odds...do you really think you will land perfectly on the life permitting universe on just one roll of the dice??

Of course under no other circumstances would this point EVER be argued against. Only when it is the context of religious implications would this be argued against...which is basically the taxi cab fallacy.

Clownboat wrote:

If I use your approach to statistics, then I can prove that I will never die.
- The probability that I will die at any precisely given moment of time is of the order of 10^(-30). Since it is so highly improbable that I will die at a given moment of time, I am nearly immortal!


And where did you get that statistic from? Your anus?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 392: Wed May 25, 2016 1:27 pm
Reply
Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Like this post
[Replying to post 391 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
and you only had ONE roll of the dice to land on the one life permitting universe under the same 10^10[10000000000000000000] odds...do you really think you will land perfectly on the life permitting universe on just one roll of the dice??


Ahh...and where is your evidence that there was only 'one roll of the die' so to speak?
You are aware, I hope, of the hypothesis in science of an infinite cycle of Big Bangs, Big Crunches?
Granted, it's not proven, but neither is your assertion that there was only the one roll of the dice.
Besides, you even admit it yourself. There is still the one side of that die that permits life (at least life as we recognise it). It's not like you're saying it's impossible for it to happen, just very very unlikely.
Quote:
And where did you get that statistic from? Your anus?

Pot, meet kettle.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 393: Wed May 25, 2016 2:11 pm
Reply

Like this post
rikuoamero wrote:

Okay fine. I'll admit it. That statement of mine is in error.


Impressive.

rikuoamero wrote:

Still however, my point about Gospel Mark still stands. For some reason, the earliest manuscripts we have of it DO NOT MENTION a resurrection. They end with the women at the tomb being told "He is risen" and that statement is not elaborated on (what exactly does it mean)?


So, if your friend passes away, and three days after the funeral you go and visit his grave, and when you get to the grave you find the grave dug and an open casket on the side of it...and there is a man standing there and he tells you "Your friend has risen. Go downtown and to the city circle, there you will meet him".

Lets pretend that this is all the man told you regarding your friend, what will you think? Regardless of whether or not the man is telling the truth, what are the implications of what he is telling you?

Please articulate that for me, because I am trying to see what is so difficult to comprehend about Mark 16:6-8.

rikuoamero wrote:

Since the earliest copies of Mark don't have a resurrection (but the later ones do), then why use Mark as 'evidence' for the resurrection?


Because a Resurrection is implied. Just like the Resurrection of your friend in the above analogy is implied.

rikuoamero wrote:

Why use Matthew which borrows plenty of its text from Mark (and which then suffers from the same problem as Mark?)


Who said Matthew borrowed the Resurrection account from Mark?

rikuoamero wrote:

Why use John, which is the latest gospel, and not the earliest?


Why not all?

rikuoamero wrote:

Long story short
Why do you trust what John says, when he was the latest of the gospels, and not the earliest version of the earliest Gospel?


I trust them all.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 394: Wed May 25, 2016 2:13 pm
Reply
Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Like this post
rikuoamero wrote:

No it isn't. It is NOT "all" that you are saying. You have gone so far beyond simply saying there is a cause for the universe that it's laughable. You claim to understand just WHAT that cause is. You claim to have identified it.


Ok, so tell me; what could be the cause of all space, time, energy, and matter?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 395: Wed May 25, 2016 2:59 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): rikuoamero, Kenisaw
[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Life isn't something you can just create in a lab from scratch (as we all know with the abiognesis problem). It takes certain engineering, certain precision, certain specification. All things that we DON'T have on such a large scale.


Life is simply a collection of non living material arranged into the proper order. Creating life from scratch in a lab will require knowing exactly what that proper order is, which is somewhat understood already. The second requirement necessarily is the ability to manipulate the material and so placing it into the proper order for the inanimate material to become a living organism. That is a really tricky part and as yet beyond out technical capabilities.

Star Trek uses the process of manipulating matter in this way, the replicators, to regularly create the food and drink that sustains the crew. The transporters use the same principle of completely disassembling people and cargo at one location and then reassembling them at a different location. These things are currently science fiction of course. We do not yet have that technology. But the science behind the theory is very plausible. In the 1960's when the original Star Trek premiered, the flip up communicators that they used were simply science fiction as well. Who even bothers with a flip up razor phone today? We have already surpassed that technology.

The original Star Trek series was set in the 23rd century. Will we REALLY have the ability to manipulate matter and to even reproduce life by the 23rd century? Of course I have no way of knowing, but the principle is very sound, and I wouldn't bet against it. Try to imagine how ridiculous the possibility of going to the moon seemed throughout virtually the entire history of mankind. In July of 1969 I sat and watched this occur on live TV. The TV itself would have seemed like magic throughout most of human history. So how were these seemingly impossible things accomplished? Through the ability to understand and manipulate quantum mechanics to produce the desired result.

Manipulating matter is simply the process of understanding the nature of the working of quantum mechanics and manipulating it to produce a desired result. Our current technology is based on this ability already. Another couple of hundred years of research and trial and error practice is not an unreasonable amount of time for figuring out the ability for allowing the full scale manipulation of matter for any purpose that we desire. But it may well take longer.

Now, keep in mind that nature had several billion years for non living material, through the natural ongoing process of quantum mechanics, to evolve first into proto-life, something not fully living but with the ability to replicate itself, and then into something resembling the first rudimentary prokaryotic organisms which had the ability, through the ingestion of an energy source and the respiration and excretion necessary in the processing of that energy source, to more fully take advantage of the environment in which it existed. And then on to the even more complicated but efficient karyotic organisms which developed the ability to become mobile and actively seek out the necessary energy sources. All of this is nothing more than quantum mechanics at work, and is based on absolutely no restrictions on time. Too fantastic to be true you say? Then look in a mirror and "believe."


Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Wed May 25, 2016 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 396: Wed May 25, 2016 3:34 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
So, if your friend passes away, and three days after the funeral you go and visit his grave, and when you get to the grave you find the grave dug and an open casket on the side of it...and there is a man standing there and he tells you "Your friend has risen. Go downtown and to the city circle, there you will meet him".

Lets pretend that this is all the man told you regarding your friend, what will you think? Regardless of whether or not the man is telling the truth, what are the implications of what he is telling you?


I'd be wondering who stole the body, and whether or not this man had something to do with it. I'd go with that possibility first because it is the most likely explanation. I'd have no reason whatsoever to believe this random dude who says my friend rose from the dead and is downtown.

Quote:
Because a Resurrection is implied. Just like the Resurrection of your friend in the above analogy is implied.

So for you, it's enough if something is implied. Gotcha. The most fantastical claim there is (reversal of death) and you're satisfied with implied evidence.

Quote:
I trust them all.

Even though there are major contradictions between them all.
Anyway, I'm not interested so much in what it is you believe...but rather your justifications, so far, which do not pass muster.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 397: Wed May 25, 2016 3:36 pm
Reply
Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Like this post
[Replying to post 394 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
Ok, so tell me; what could be the cause of all space, time, energy, and matter?


Is this an admission to God of the Gaps?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 398: Wed May 25, 2016 5:00 pm
Reply

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Quote:
This isn't an argument. I can't create a star either. Does that mean stars aren't possible?


No, but then again stars aren't considered "sentient life", at least not as far as I'm concerned.


Ah, so now you are subjectively applying the standard of repeatability in a lab as a requirement. Which means it is not a standard at all then. Let me know when you can come up with something more consistent and applicable to everything...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

You have not refuted my point that everything in every life form known to exist does so within the laws of the universe, and therefore IS possible.


Right, so tell me what "law of the universe" will allow for life to come from nonlife.


All of them, as I've already explained.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

You have not refuted my point that every single particle in every life form is "inanimate".


Are you living, or are you NOT living?


Living obviously, which STILL does not refute my point that every single particle in every life form is inanimate. Or let's ask it another way - name for us the molecule in your body that makes you "living"...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Whether or not I can personally replicate a series of chemical reactions has nothing to do with it.


Yes it does...any scientific "theory" that cannot be demonstrated to be true by the means of observation, repeated experiment, and prediction... cannot be considered a fact.


No one said abiogenesis is a scientific theory. It's not. And no scientific theory is called a "fact". A scientific theory is a well substantiated concept based on the evidence. All scientific theories are considered open and incomplete, just in case more data is found in the future. What I said is that there is evidence that supports the claim that life started naturally, as opposed to the complete lack of evidence that points to any creationism or supernatural concept.

Quote:
You can speculate how it happened all you like, but what you think is true via speculation, and what you know to be true based on the scientific method...those are two different things.


Yes they are, and every single data point we have so far points to one possibility over the other. Care to guess which one that is?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

That's your smoking gun? "Bio-babble", is it? Nothing I've written above is false. You don't have to take my word for it either, you can verify all of it at your leisure. Calling it "bio-babble" is not an argument. If you can cite specific reasons why a particular item listed above is inaccurate (and I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor) you let me know...


It is bio-babble. Dazzling the audience with big and technical words, all sounds good. Sounds great. Sounds very...scientify..But when it comes to actually implementing what you are saying in an actual science lab and producing actual results, that is the tricky part.


So, to reinterate, you can't seem to cite specific reasons why any of those items I listed are inaccurate. Now on top of "bio-babble" I get "big and technical words" thrown at me too.

If you have any specific questions about my discussion points please let me know. I'd be sincerely happy to clarify or explain the material.

Quote:
Sure, Stanley Miller can dazzle you by using technical words to describe his "experiment". But what he can't do is go in a lab and produce a living cell.


Miller-Urey was never trying to create a living cell. So seem to lack understanding about the stated goals of those experiments...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Yes, and the exact things that living cells are made up of are A) inanimate material, and B) exist within the laws of the universe.


Again, cart before the horse fallacy. Notice that when you say "...and the exact things that living cells are made up of"..

But when you say "living", you are presupposing a living cell, when the living cell is exactly what the question is about...how did it become living? Can you go in a lab and produce a "living" cell? No, you can't.


No, when I say "living" I am talking about a complex group of molecules that follow the definition of what constitutes "alive" biologically. As you can't refute that life is allowable under the laws of the universe, and you can't refute that all living things are made up out of inanimate components, the answer to your question is that "living" is a collective property of those complex groupings of molecules found in "life".

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Those things that exist in "LIVING CELLS", like sugars and amino acids and alcohols? They exist in deep space, on things like meteorites and comets (see Murchison meteorite for an example). Apparently you think they are somehow special because living things use them. You are misinformed.


No, it is YOU who is misinformed. "because LIVING things use them". Ok, so what makes things "living", and how did nature accomplish that goal. And if you know how nature accomplished that goal, why can't you accomplish that goal...in a lab?

Hmm.


How am I misinformed? Just because living things use those particular molecules doesn't mean they don't exist outside life. They do, all over the place. That life would use building blocks found in nature shouldn't come as a surprise at all...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Actually that isn't true. People have taken organic material, put it inside a lipidic membrane, and made living cells.


Show me any article/link where a living cell was created. Not happening.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/

Small excerpt from article...

CNN: Did you create new life?

Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.

We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.



See? That isn't life from life...it is "life out of a living cell". Show me an article where a living cell was created from scratch.


That's exactly what I was talking about. They put organic components (a manufactured DNA) into a lipidic membrane (that's what a cell wall is) that didn't have any DNA in it (and therefore had no ability to reproduce, metabolize, etc) and the combined materials started acting as a living cell. Maybe I shouldn't have used big and technical words in my original statement, my apologies for that...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

But that is really beside the point. We know life exists, we know life is made up of components found in every corner of the known universe, and we know that life exists within the known laws of the universe. Those are facts. No faith required.


Yeah, and we know that the material that Buckingham Palace is made up of existed before the palace was built...we know that the "stuff" existed prior to it being built...But I guess we can go right ahead and conclude that the palace began to exist based on an extremely long period of naturalistic occurrences...and over time...brick by brick...step by step....room by room...glass by glass...the palace was built.


Pretty bad comparison. The molecules in your cells aren't modified into rectangular shapes, or stacked in unnatural formations. There's no intelligent changes needed to any of the chemistry or physics inside any molecule in any life form in order for those things to exist. They exist within the rules of the universe, without modification...

Quote:
Sure, it took billions of years, but in so much time, anything can happen, right? No intelligent designers needed...no engineering required...no blue prints....just good ole nature...getting the job done.


770 million years actually, but it sounds like you are finally getting it. Life is just chemistry in action. Well done you!

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know that some molecules (including some that act as RNA ligases) are self replicating all by themselves. We know that meteorites and comets rich in all sorts of organic components exist and fall to Earth all the time. Facts, not faith.


Ok, so go in a lab and simulate the early earth...simulate the right conditions, the right environment...and get life.


OK. Tell me what the conditions were, like the pH of the water, the salinity, the temp, the types and amounts of dissolved gases contained within. Then build me a lab that can simulate oceans of water with thousands of miles of shorelines full of reactive surfaces, and don't forget to add the underwater volcanic ridges. You'll need to bring the moon in closer too since the tides were much bigger back then. When you've got that all set let me know.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

What we have zero data or empirical evidence for is any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history...


We don't even have that for the naturalistic claims.


Well, except for the stuff I've been listing over and over that you can't refute you mean...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Because the laws of the universe allow for it to happen. It's possible.


Can you prove that?


You're alive, aren't you? If it wasn't possible for you to exist under the laws of the universe, you wouldn't exist. You do. Clearly life is possible within the rules. I feel that it is a little ridiculous that this even needs to be explained...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

The universe allows for stars to exist. We can't make those happen either. But I bet you own a pair of sunglasses...


Are stars living? Now of course, I can also mention the fact that we don't know where the "stuff" that makes up stars...where did it come from? Do we know that? No, we don't.


You mean where everything in the universe came from? It came from nothing. The whole universe equals zero, didn't you know that?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Bad question. Life isn't a matter of intelligence.

It's a matter of chemistry and physics and so forth. Your predisposition to think life takes intelligence to exist is why you would ask such an illogical question in the first place...


It is a legitimate question to ask how is a mindless and blind process (nature) able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do.


It is a legitimate question to ask how life began. That humans can't answer the question at this time doesn't validate the irrational concept that it takes life to produce life...

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

The existence of something does not prove how it came to be. The only thing the existence of consciousness proves is that consciousness does indeed exist.


There is no doubt that consciousness began to exist...and everything that begins to exist has a cause. Again, It is a legitimate question; Consciousness began to exist, but where did it come from and how did it get here.


Your inability to answer the question has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question.[/quote]

I agree that consciousness began to exist (which makes an eternal god creature impossible by the way). I do not agree that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because the universe is just nothing broken up into pieces (that's for another discussion however). If complex groups of molecules have a property that allows consciousness, than consciousness will happen if those molecules get together.

It's a legitimate question about how consciousness happens. What is not legitimate is what you did, which is to claim that the existence of consciousness proves intent, which is utter nonsense.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

It is false logic to claim that something can only exist if something else created it. It's a self defeating argument.


Straw man. No one is claiming that "something can only exist if something else created it". Hell, I don't even hold that view, so I sure as heck wouldn't argument that point.


You wrote in a previous post: “The argument from consciousness does an excellent job of pointing out the fact that consciousness is nothing that something one can go in a lab and create, thus, it had to come from an outside source, something that was already conscious. But we don't need to talk about that, do we?” You claim here that consciousness had to come from consciousness. You still want to claim that you “don’t even hold that view”?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

If it takes a conscious to create consciousness, where did your god creature's conscious come from? See, self defeating.


It is amazing how you think you have this knock-down refutation, when in reality, you don't.


If I don’t then show me the hole in it, which we all notice you haven’t done yet. Maybe this should be listed under “bio-babble”…

Quote:
The argument is that any consciousness which begins to exist requires a conscious cause. And since God never began to exist...well, you get the point, don't you?


Tada. The false logic loop. I love this one in particular because it contains two different logical errors. The first is that an eternal being can never reach this point to “create” anything. If it never had a beginning, then it would take an infinity in its existence before it got around to creating consciousness. But there is no middle of infinity, so it could never reach that moment. The second is that you’ve already defeated your own argument. If a god creature doesn’t need another consciousness to have conscious then obviously it possible for consciousness to exist outside of created efforts. Which means you can’t claim that consciousness requires a conscious cause.

Quote:
Now, we both know that consciousness began to exist, and all I am asking is where did it come from and how do you scientifically explain its origins.


I can’t explain it. People are working on answering that question. Since there is zero evidence of divine critters or the supernatural however, there certainly isn’t any reason to think the answer lies in that speculative realm…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Oh, I'm sure you want to throw out the "god exception" at this point. You'll want to say that the god creature doesn't need creating, because it either always existed or because it is just god. But now you've just admitted that it doesn't always take a conscious to create consciousness. Self defeating once again.


Again, you are misinformed on the argument. The argument is..

A. Consciousness began to exist on this earth

B. The consciousness that began to exist on this earth owes its existence to a "Super conscious being".

C. The "Super Being" that created consciousness cannot owe its existence to anything outside of itself.

In a nut shell, the argument is stating that mental states aren't physical, but immaterial...therefore, no naturalistic explanation can be given to explain the origins of any immaterial "thing".

And this is not special pleading for God, it is simply appealing to the best explanation.


Your premise is faulty. You cannot show with any authority that conscious can only exist because a different consciousness desired it to. In fact you are putting the cart before the horse. You must first show that the supernatural creature actually exists. After you do this, then you have to show that this supernatural creature bothered to create consciousness. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it created it. For all you know it exists and had nothing to do with the whole affair.

You also have no evidence or empirical data that the mental state is not physical. In fact everything gathered to date on the topic clearly shows that the mental state is about energy and chemical reactions. So this premise is faulty as well because it is also baseless and devoid of any supporting evidence.

If you would stop making claims and start producing evidence to support these claims, maybe this discussion could advance…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

(It's also self defeating because if a being always existed then it can never arrive at this point and time to create anything. there is no middle of infinity, but that is for another discussion)...


God didn't "arrive" at any point in time to create...but he CAUSED the entire chain of causation to BEGIN. But yeah, that is another discussion.


Great. Prove it.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

There is evidence of abiogenesis. We know life started simply a long time ago (instead of just magically appearing into modern animals).


"Simply" is an understatement.


Not really. A prokaryote is a simple step up from a protobiont, which is a simple cell membrane (lipidic) containing self replicating molecules. The cell membrane is the only cellular structure that is found in all of the cells of all of the organisms on Earth by the way. What we don’t see is the sudden appearance of cows and chickens and humans, like some religions claim.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know all living things are related.


Only in the sense that God created all living things. Of course, as a theist, I prefer the common designer hypothesis over the common ancestor one.


Not in that sense at all. No evidence or empirical data agrees with such drivel. We know they are related by geological evidences, biological ones, and genetic ones, and there isn’t even one data point that supports supernatural conjectures…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know that there are basic molecules that self-replicate, which is all that living things are but on a larger scale.


Please explain how did ANYTHING get to the point of living after existing in a nonliving state. Please explain how this is done.


Property of the combination of large groups of molecules. Just like color and melting point and every other characteristic of matter is a property of the combination of the particles that make up that matter.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know of viruses, that do not fit the definition of alive yet can self replicate (they are a stage between life and non-life in other words).


I am talking about sentient life.


Yes, completely ignore something that is an obvious stepping stone between non-living and living things. That does wonders for your stance, ignoring the majority of life on Earth. Talking about just sentient life (like elephants and dolphins) doesn’t change any of the points made however.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know life does not violate any law of the universe.


But its origins does.


No, it doesn’t. It’s frustrating that you cannot grasp the rather simple idea that if life could not start within the laws of the universe, it can’t possible EXIST within the laws of the universe. Since nothing about life violates any of those laws, what about the start of life possibly could? There is no chemical, physical, thermodynamic, or any other limitation that I can think of. If you know of one please share it for all to see…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

We know that one of the primary building blocks to life (amino acids) exist all over the place (as do sugars and alcohols and other organic molecules).


Where did it all come from?


It came from nothing. Add up all the positive energy in the universe (mass, light, thermal, kinetic, etc ) and subtract out the negative (gravity) and you get zero. Net charge of the universe is zero. Net spin, net momentum, net (insert here)…all zero. It’s been confirmed time and again. The universe is nothing broken up into lots of pieces. 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1=0, but on a far grander scale. Don’t take my word for it, look into it…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

The only other option, the "creation" option, has exactly zero empirical data supporting it. There isn't even one single shred of evidence that the supernatural exists.


I am convinced by the evidence that the supernatural not only exists, but is absolutely necessary...considering the fact that we live in a universe that began to exist.


Once again, existence does not prove creation. No one even knows if the universe began to exist, or this is just the latest incarnation of sequential universes for that matter. Either way, since everything in the universe cancels out, there is no need for a something for it to exist.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Since there is a lack of evidence for supernatural claims, and there IS evidence of a natural beginning to life (which you conveniently omit from your copy and paste job), that means the obvious conclusion is that life began naturally.


It is impossible for life to began naturally based on the arguments against infinite regress...the argument from consciousness...and also the LACK OF EVIDENCE for abiogenesis.


Infinite regress is null in the face of the universe equating to nothing. The argument from consciousness is also null as outlined above. And since there is evidence that life began naturally, even that statement in false.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

There's evidence for supernaturalism? Thanks for claiming it, how about providing it now?


In progress.


Like the work on abiogenesis you mean?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

And you'd be wrong on both theories (because evolution and abiogenesis are not the same theory).


One requires the other...they are related...you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is negated, evolution is impossible.


If a god creature made all life, evolution could still not occur? Why not?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Not sure where evolution got thrown into this by the way, since we were talking about abiogenesis.


One conversation leads to another...


Only in your world. They are not related in science. The theory of evolution deals with the change that groups of life forms go through over time. How life started has no part in that theory. I would suggest further investigation into the two topics so that a greater understanding of each one will help you understand the differences between them…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

But since you brought it up, the amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is enormous. If you want to start a thread on that particular scientific theory, please do so.

You start it, I will be there.


No need. There’s all kinds of them already, and I haven’t seen a cultist win that debate to date.

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

The possibility that a god exists does not mean one does. False logic. I (and many other atheists in this forum) will immediately tell you that we cannot state with 100% certainty that a god creature of some sort does not exist. Perhaps one does.


What you've done is tripped and fell right into the Modal Ontological Argument. Unfortunate for you.

That being said, you are simply wrong. If God's existence is possible, he must exist, because his existence would be a necessary truth. So If God's existence is necessary (meaning he cannot fail to exist), then if it is possible for God to exist, he must actually exist.

Why? Because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false.

So just by admitting that God could exist, you are admitting that God exists. This argument is very abstract..so I will let it all marinate for you. I will start a thread on it soon.


I look forward to it. The argument isn’t valid. Like all philosophical debates, this one has to start with certain premises, but if the premises are faulty then the whole argument falls apart. Please start your thread if you so desire. But I will point out to you now that every single god must therefore exist according to your argument. So must leprechauns, unicorns, Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and any other claimed entity for which there is currently zero evidence showing they exist. Literally an infinite number of such beings must exist, because there is no limitation on supernatural beings, which means your particular flavor of god is statistically zero necessarily. So start that thread, and let’s see what happens…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

I don't know, maybe they do. How do you know they don't? We have verifiable laboratory data that particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Everything in the universe, like money and cars and bikes, are made out of these particles. Seems you don't deny that it happens, you just want them to happen in more complex groupings of particles. Start a research fund and see what you can find out...


First off, I disagree that the particles pop out of nothing. I understand that in physics, the word "nothing" has been equivocated a lot, thanks to Lawrence Krauss and others.


Read up on the Casimir Effect. They don’t exist, then they do, then they don’t.

Quote:
If the virtual particles can pop in to nothing, then so should everything else.


Why?

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

Once again I must point out that you are making statements with a general lack of knowledge about the topic that you are discussing. In Physics it is well known that empty space is actually more unstable, more volatile than space with stuff in it. Please research this more to better your understanding of the nature of quantum fluctuations in empty space.


And once again, I must point out that you are equivocating the term "nothing". Nothing is "nothing". If the empty space you are referring to is "nothing" in the sense that there isn't a single entity within it (whether natural or supernatural), then all of this "unstable" stuff is nonsense.

You saying that "empty space" (if you are using it synonymously with "nothing) is unstable is no different than saying that "nothing" is the color red..or that "nothing" weighs 5 lbs. It is nonsense.

Krauss has been called out on this equivocation, and his followers have fallen suit with the same nonsense behind him.


No it is not synonymous with that. Empty space is unstable. Go ask a physicist, you don’t have to take my word for it…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

It's only a problem when you don't understand the basics of quantum mechanics and the fluctuations of empty space. You don't need infinity to have something. The previously mentioned physics forums or blogs online are a great source to find succinct explanations about these natural phenomena.


Sorry, charlie. The problem of infinite regression applies to ANYTHING. You can take whatever cosmological model you like. It has nothing to do with a heavy understanding of physics, or a poor understanding of physics. It just doesn't matter. You can appeal to it all you want, but it won't do you any good.

The fact of the matter is...the entire cause/effect chain cannot be past eternal. Point blank, period.


No it doesn’t apply to anything, because of the time component. Can you prove that cause and effort begin before the start of spacetime? Nope…

Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:

I do not claim that anything is more correct than anything else. I am presenting to you the current understanding of some of the basics of quantum mechanics and things like virtual particles. These things are based on mathematical calculations, experimentation, and observation. These things fall under the general consensus of scientific understanding and are generally agreed to be accurate and reliable. Other things do not, but we aren't talking about those other things.


All of that stuff exist within time/space, though...and the infinity applies to it.


Incorrect, because spacetime is not infinite…

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 399: Wed May 25, 2016 5:07 pm
Reply
Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

rikuoamero wrote:

No it isn't. It is NOT "all" that you are saying. You have gone so far beyond simply saying there is a cause for the universe that it's laughable. You claim to understand just WHAT that cause is. You claim to have identified it.


Ok, so tell me; what could be the cause of all space, time, energy, and matter?


The splitting up of nothing into various pieces...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 400: Wed May 25, 2016 5:48 pm
Reply

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:


And where did you get that statistic from? Your anus?




Warning Moderator Warning


Such vulgarity is not permitted on this forum. It also breaks the rules of civility.

Please refrain from such attacks and offensive language.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 45, 46, 47  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version