Where's the Beef, That is, the Hard Evidence to Believe?

I've dealt with this before, but as far as I can see there are plausible natural explanations for every piece of evidence a believer uses to defend her faith. Religious experience?...meet wish fulfillment. Near death experiences?...meet oxygen deprived brains. Resurrection of Jesus?...meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time. Intelligent design?...meet the problem of evil. You'd think there would be something, anything that would show the believer has good solid evidence to believe. There isn't anything like that at all.

130 comments:

John said...

I would agree. I think when we are dealing with issues such as these plausiblity judgements are to a large degree in the eye of the beholder. I find that a cumulative case (along with my experience) can establish the reasonableness of belief in Theism for me. One of my favorite arguments, for example, would have to be a version of the Cosmological argument. But it's not a rationally inescapable proof. One could simply take the position that the world is absurd and no reason can be given for it's existence. The world is the sort of thing which ought to have an explanation for it's existence, but does not.

I'm not sure about the historical evidence for the death and ressurrection of Christ though. It just seems wild and crazy that God would require blood in order to forgive people. Moreover, Genesis chapter one contradicts the fossil record on the order of events for the Days of creation.

While I see no hard evidence for belief, I do see some evidence for Theism. And together with my experience of God's goodness, I think, is sufficient for me to be justified in my belief.

Matt said...

"meet the problem of evil"

I hope the problem of evil isn't an explanation of how there seems to be design in our world.

Unknown said...

The world is the sort of thing which ought to have an explanation for it's existence, but does not.
To say, with confidence, that there is no explanation for the universe is making an affirmative claim. Where’s your evidence that there is no explanation for the universe or that your position on the issue is more reasonable than theism?


I'm not sure about the historical evidence for the death and ressurrection of Christ though.

The theological significance of an event and the event’s historicity are two completely different claims. For example, suppose I claimed that the allies won the Second World War because God was on their side. You couldn’t deny the historicity of the Second World War simply because you didn’t accept my interpretation of it. In the same way, you can’t deny the historical evidence for the resurrection simply because of its theological implications.

Moreover, Genesis chapter one contradicts the fossil record on the order of events for the Days of creation.
That’s an argument regarding biblical inerrancy rather than Christianity itself. Moreover, people such as St Augustine were advocating a less literalistic reading of Genesis prior to there being any scientific reason to do so.

As for John’s post, I get the impression this is him trying to reassure the troops after getting annihilated by dinesh d'souza.

John said...

Michael,

I never said it was more reasonable than Theism. It's simply a position that can be taken by the Atheist. When the question is asked "Why are there any beings at all?" the naturalist can answer that there is no reason or that the question is meaningless which cannot be answered. There is no way of proving that the question does in fact have a satisfactory answer.

To the person who finds the question meaningful and who is unwilling to accept that there is no satisfactory answer to the question may find the argument convincing.

Besides, the conclusion is compatible with many views of God.

I find it crazy and bizzare that the god of the bible requires blood in order to forgive people. It's morally repugnant.

Regardless,the evidence for the ressurrection (according to William Lane Craig) is only probable. Moreover, we are talking about someone raising from the dead here. It seems we would require stronger evidence for such an event than is available. Moreover, when dealing with inference to the best explanation there are an infinite number of logical possible explanations. So, it would be hard to ensure one has the best explanation. Especially when that explanation is so wildly implausible to. We are not required by rationality to accept the ressurection. And any god that requires blood to forgive someone is crazy.

I've read all the interpretations of Genesis chapter one and even if the days are figurative they are listed in chronological order and that order contradicts the fossil record.

John said...

If you will read what I wrote above you will see that I am a Theist by the way.

John said...

Michael,

You also need to understand that what seems reasonable to you (people rising from the dead) doesn't seem reasonable to others. People simply don't experience people rising from the dead in our world.

Breckmin said...

"Religious experience?...meet wish fulfillment."

This fails to address the logic of worship and the joy and freedom which comes from group worship throughout the world. There is a difference between singing praise songs with joy and love and a peace that surpasses the things of the flesh and this temporary creation. Muslims worship in fear and reverence but they do not worship the same way born-again Christians do (out of LOVE, out of choice, out of spiritual oneness which produces joy, and with songs of praise which glorify the Creator in a specific way).

A Christian can worship this way alone, or with a group. It is the "way in which" the worship is performed that makes it quite different from bowing in fear..or fornicating like pagans do..or doing other religious acts which follow formula rather than act from the heart.

Breckmin said...

"Near death experiences?...meet oxygen deprived brains."

This fails to address out of body experiences and those who can describe everything that is going on in the operating room WHEN THEIR EYES WERE CLOSED..because they were "out."

"Resurrection of Jesus?...meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time."

Except that most of these legends did not have an empty tomb, nor the adversaries making up stories to explain an empty tomb, or people dying for what they had witnessed.

Clearly, it DOES take faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...but that is a separate question from whether or not we were created by an Infinite Creator.

"Intelligent design?...meet the problem of evil."

On this point you have absolutely nothing. In fact, your book absolutely FAILS to even address the correct answer for the alleged problem of evil.

Until you understand the progression of Love requires "choice/voliton" and how this creates the inevitable potential byproduct of sin and disobedience (without knowledge that has to be learned), you will never be addressing the REAL problem of evil that God is dealing with in this temporary creation... and how it is a danger to beings of choice. (Because of the absolute Holiness of God).

"You'd think there would be something, anything that would show the believer has good solid evidence to believe."

You can start with the scientific observations of "information needs and Intelligent Source, complex mechanical working systems are clearly designed, and IF-THEN algorithmic programming is clearly programmed. This will take you to
an honest conclusion of agnostic theism. Then you can look at comparative religions and see "which God" is capable of such a creation as we see in this universe. You can look at specific things which lead to the conclusion of an infinite Creator and then make deductions which lead to orthodox monotheism. From this point you can compare Judaism, Islam, Christianity and born-again Christianity and see (under much prayer for protection from deception)which one leads you to the Truth.

Knowing that orthodox monotheism is the most logical conclusion can be different from becoming a born-again Christian. You can't do the latter without God's Spirit to open your eyes.

Breckmin said...

"Intelligent design?...meet the problem of evil."

Not only do you have absolutely nothing because you never address the correct answer as to "why evil exists" BUT you also can not reject scientific evidence on the basis of what you don't understand about its flaws. The corruption that exists in a system can be the result of other factors than its origin.

It is as simple as understanding that "poor design" is STILL design... regardless of how you believe the system should have been designed.

You can not reject design based on what you don't understand about the flaws of the design. This is completely illogical.

John said...

Brekmin,

I see worship as a way of life. I worship what I love the most. It's what I center my life arround. It takes on many different forms. One doesn't have to sing in order to worship something. I worship the Creator out of love too. She's my Treasure. In fact I find God to be lovely and beautiful. I like to write poetry and listen to love songs myself. You do have a point though about Christianity having alot of worship music.

D.L. Folken said...

I really like the comments on this post so far! There is a lot of deep thinking taking place for a change!!

John simply needs a little help. The only reasonable and rational explanation for reality is the Mind of God. If you begin with the hypothesis that the mind of God is the foundation of reality, a person's expectations are met in reality itself.

If atheism was really the correct worldview, I certainly would not be here...

God Bless...

Sean said...

I agree.

When I debate people, I always wonder if there is something I'm missing, something that they know that I don't. And I always come to the same conclusion - what makes them believe is something that wouldn't make them believe if the same exact "evidence" that strengthens their convictions were reasons why a person of another faith believed.

Clare said...

"One could simply take the position that the world is absurd and no reason can be given for it's existence. The world is the sort of thing which ought to have an explanation for it's existence, but does not." Cole.

Cole, you have been readng too much Camus! I think you need to redefine the word 'absurd". It means ridiculous - not meaningless.
If the world and the universe were created by God just for people, why did he wait 13 billion years to do so? -humans obviously were not a priority.
Why should the world have a supernatural explanation for its existence? The scientific one is just fine for me.

unkleE said...

"Why should the world have a supernatural explanation for its existence? The scientific one is just fine for me."
What exactly is the scientific explanation that the universe exists?

unkleE said...

"Resurrection of Jesus?...meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time."

John, you should know as well as I do that the majority of expert historians consider the following to be historically true (whatever the explanation):

1. Jesus' tomb was empty.
2. His followers had some experience they believed was the risen Jesus.
3. These facts were a strong basis in the rise of the christian faith.
4. The resurrection story and belief was so early that there was no time for legend to have arisen (legends take far longer).

So you have ignored the facts and made your own evidence-free assertion. And you want us to follow you in this? You urge believers to reconsider their belief based on the facts. May I encourage you to begin to do the same?

Best wishes.

Clare said...

uncle e:
We were talking about the world -the planet earth- not the universe. Don't give me straw men!-or red herrings.
Big bang?
What is your explanation of the origins of the earth? Goddidit? How exactly?

Breckmin said...

"You do have a point though about Christianity having alot of worship music."
Cole,
perhaps we are making progress then.

I would challenge you to not get caught up in the "male" "female" thing. The Infinite Creator is in no need of gender. He is revealed in the masculine as a Heavenly Father because the Father/child relationship models the Creator/created being relationship.
Clearly there is more to it and I am over simplifying here..

Remember,however, that Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven. Calling the Infinite Creator a "she" is focusing on gender as though it is somehow innate rather than being created for a purpose.

jwhendy said...

@ uncle e: I don't really have an issue challenging the nature of the 'facts' that 'most' historians claim as true. Why? Because history is incredible unreliable, especially when passed down through books like the gospels. Some say that the differences seen in them is evidence for their authenticity (as in 'eyewitnesses' get little details wrong) while at the same time resting on the fact that they share so much in common and report on the same details as evidence that multiple witnesses attest to the same events.

Here's a case in point. The issue of whether or not Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings had children together is wildly debated to this day. This happened just over 200 years ago. We have eyewitness accounts, known figures in the lineage, far more numerous works, and individuals who, frankly, live in an age far more attentive to accurate recollection of events. We don't know.

If we can't figure out the details of something biologically and historically assessable, namely if a founding member of the United States (aka a ridiculously public figure in his time period) fathered or did not father children by a concubine with individuals writing a decent amount about the matter, how can we expect to 'know' with certainty the facts about a supernatural occurrence like the resurrection which happened 2000 years ago.

The biggest testament which speaks against the supposedly close-to-unanimous agreement of historians on the matters-of-fact of Jesus' resurrection is the fact that only the gospels, pro-Jesus works, survived to tell about it. For a man who did the most astounding miracles ever for at least 1 year (synoptics) and perhaps 3 years (John's gospel), it would seem that word of this phenomenon would have spread at least a little bit to those with paper and pen so that many could have written about him skeptically as well as with the viewpoint that he was the messiah.

I began questioning my faith about a month and a half ago and it started with a simple question about the historicity of Jesus that popped into my head. I began researching and was astounded to find that really only two individuals (that I know of so far) - Josephus and Tacitus - mention Jesus by name. There are references to 'Chrestus', but not the name Jesus. Josephus' writings are highly doubted regarding their authenticity. Anyway, if I had found non-gospel writers attesting to a man who worked miracles and who supposedly rose from the dead, I absolutely declare that I would have closed the browser and gone on with my life. Instead, I found nothing convincing historically to support that Jesus is who the gospels say he is and so I began to question everything.

Back to the point: yes, I disagree with most historians I suppose. I have no issue with thinking that we just have no idea what happened 2000 years ago. One can't count the number of Christians who believe as evidence that Jesus actually rose, right? If you attribute the fact that people put their eggs in a given basket as proof that their belief is truthfully founded you have to accept any number of other large religions in the world.

I think that the resurrection story is viewed by pre-believing Christians as somehow different from other 'special' stories. Why are the bible's supernatural claims viewed as different from Scientology's, the fact that there is an exact gold replica of the Koran in heaven, that Joseph Smith received gold plates from an angel and literally translated a holy book from them, etc.? Why are Christianity's supernatural propositions true while these others are not? At least mormonism is within the last couple hundred years (easier to establish reliability from the start), not to mention he literally has six or so eyewitness signatures on every copy of the Book of Mormon stating that they saw him translate the book off of angelically descended gold plates. It seems that this is a far more historically accurate event, then.

Cont...

jwhendy said...

cont...

Lastly, even if one does reach the conclusion that the 4 events (by the way, I think you have them wrong, at least from W.L. Craig's version: death, burial, empty tomb, post-death appearances) have as their most likely possibility the fact that Jesus actually did rise, then my recommendation is that we should all start from the standpoint that this IS NOT the best explanation, then examine the facts, and then decide.

It's an interesting point in and of itself that Christians who already believe are the ones using the historical 'facts' of the resurrection accounts as proof of Jesus resurrection. Despite whether or not the majority of historians state that these facts are established by history... do they all believe Jesus rose from the dead? If not, why not? If not, then why should I, not an expert in the area, be expected to believe when an expert in the area who absolutely supports the 4 'facts' does not believe himself?

'Evidence' should be such that upon seeing it, there is almost a unanimous conclusion over time as to what that evidence support. The conclusion can change with new evidence, but overall it advances into a more and more accurate representation of that which it seeks to explain. The evolution of thought on geocentric -> heliocentric with circular orbits -> heliocentric with elliptical orbits is a perfect example of this. There's no problem with a wrong hypothesis and this shows how 'evidence' (changing positions of starts in the sky, retrograde motion, etc.) can be interpreted differently.

The difference is that over time, explanations got better and better and continue to evolve to explain nuances with star color shifts, planetary interaction, etc. The resurrection is not such: the explanation of the evidence has not evolved and is in fact built to resist any evolution whatsoever. Not only this, but the better an explanation with respect to the given evidence, the more unanimously accepted it becomes. The resurrection 'facts' have remained completely unconvincing to almost all but those who are already Christians.

Anonymous said...

Hendy, as far as I know you're the first person I've heard of who was led to question his faith because of the issue of the historical Jesus. That's interesting to me. I didn't think that issue would ever do this.

John said...

"If the world and the universe were created by God just for people, why did he wait 13 billion years to do so? -humans obviously were not a priority.
Why should the world have a supernatural explanation for its existence? The scientific one is just fine for me."

Clare,

I guess I need to clarify that when I said "World" I meant "Universe."

I see God as being outside our time dimension. So, what seems a long time for us could be a very short time for God. I don't see the problem.

I don't think we "have" to have God to explain it. Like I said it's not a rationally inescapable proof. One could simply take the position that the universe is absurd and no reason can be given for it's existence. The universe is the sort of thing which ought to have an explanation for it's existence, but does not.

Unknown said...

@Cole:When the question is asked "Why are there any beings at all?" the naturalist can answer that there is no reason
Science progresses by assuming that things happen for a reason – image where we would be if Newton had simply said, “to ask why things fall towards the earth is a meaningless question.” It’s highly ironic if sceptics tell us to question everything, only to put the biggest questions in life out of bounds.

I find it crazy and bizzare that the god of the bible requires blood in order to forgive people. It's morally repugnant.
The fact you find something repugnant is not a logical objection. The truth is determined by evidence, logic and reason – not by what you personally find repungent. If God had just forgiven our sins without any pain then the act would be meaningless.

I've read all the interpretations of Genesis chapter one and even if the days are figurative they are listed in chronological order and that order contradicts the fossil record.
The problem is that the precise scientific reporting of events is quite a modern concept – this type of writing doesn’t go back much beyond works such as Newton’s ‘PhilosophiƦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica’ and even those texts are not identical to a modern scientific report. So what you’re doing is reading Genesis with a 21st century idea of how a creation account should read!

If you will read what I wrote above you will see that I am a Theist by the way.
I apologise for that. I assumed that as your post claimed to agree with John you shared his worldview and so I stand corrected.

You also need to understand that what seems reasonable to you (people rising from the dead) doesn't seem reasonable to others.
But then you need to understand that what seems reasonable to you does not seem reasonable to others. Maybe people should take the outsider test to scepticism...

John said...

"Science progresses by assuming that things happen for a reason – image where we would be if Newton had simply said, “to ask why things fall towards the earth is a meaningless question.” It’s highly ironic if sceptics tell us to question everything, only to put the biggest questions in life out of bounds."

I here ya. Nontheless they can do so if they want to. As John has said: "Maybe reason isn't something that can answer the question of our origins. After all, those who believe God created the universe cannot offer any reasons why there should be a self-existent being that has always existed either."

Just because things we experience all have causes doesn't necessarily mean the whole universe needs a cause. This may commit the fallacy of composition. Moreover, it's not at all clear that there can even be causality without time. Most scientists that I've read would say that if there's no time then there's no causality. Since there was no time "prior" to the Big Bang there was also no causality. Scientists and philosophers all have different intuitions about time, eternity, and causality. We can't be certain about it.

John said...

Michael,

The Christian physicist David Wilkinson makes this point about time, cause and effect in his book:

God, Time, & Stephen Hawking: An Exploration into Origins (Paperback)
~ David Wilkinson

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "I don't really have an issue challenging the nature of the 'facts' that 'most' historians claim as true."

But surely you (and John) would not choose his evidence-less legend theory over the evidence of the historians?

"I began questioning my faith about a month and a half ago and it started with a simple question about the historicity of Jesus that popped into my head. I began researching and was astounded to find that really only two individuals (that I know of so far) - Josephus and Tacitus - mention Jesus by name."

Perhaps you have also read that almost all historians, secular ones, atheist ones, the lot, have considered all the factors you mention and still conclude that Jesus did indeed live and we have significant knowledge of what he did and said. Examples (and I could give you many more if you wanted me to send them to you):

Michael Grant (not a believer) in "Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels", page 199-200: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

EP Sanders: "Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died." and "the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

"even if one does reach the conclusion that the 4 events (by the way, I think you have them wrong, at least from W.L. Craig's version: death, burial, empty tomb, post-death appearances) have as their most likely possibility the fact that Jesus actually did rise, then my recommendation is that we should all start from the standpoint that this IS NOT the best explanation, then examine the facts, and then decide."

You will notice that my comment did not claim anything about the resurrection other than these two facts: (1) scholars are in good agreement about some basic facts (I am aware Craig says similar things, but I didn't get my list from him and it is apparently slightly different to his), and (2) John made claims that are contrary to the experts and which for which he offered no evidence. Before we interpret, we need to have the facts, and John has turned his back on these facts. That was all I was drawing attention to.

Best wishes.

unkleE said...

Clare, in response to your comment: "Why should the world have a supernatural explanation for its existence? The scientific one is just fine for me." I made no statement, I just asked a simple question: "What exactly is the scientific explanation that the universe exists?.

Your answer: "Don't give me straw men!-or red herrings. Big bang? What is your explanation of the origins of the earth? Goddidit? How exactly?" doesn't answer that question.

Of course you are not obligated to respond, but do you have an answer? Thanks.

busterggi said...

There are more witnesses on record claiming to have seen Elvis since his 'death' than the bible lists for having seen Jesus.

So much for the reliability of eye-witness testimony.

The universe exists because its real - the exact oppose of god.

jwhendy said...

@John Loftus: there were probably some other factors involved, but yes, the beginning of all of this was simply some questions that popped into my head about historicity of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. This opened the door to so much more, but the door only continued to swing open because I found a lack of evidence for the first two.

@uncle e: you've made some good points. I'll try to respond and not miss too many:
- I am left in a difficult predicament. You are correct that it appears that all the available evidence can lead us to be reasonably sure of Jesus actual existence as a historical person and even possibly sure of the 4 'facts' surrounding his death and the resulting band of followers. In honesty I'm not sure what to do with this. I am stuck in a middle ground, finding significant reasons to doubt the resurrection as a conclusion drawn from these 'facts' but also not able to dismiss them. I'm left to keep thinking.

- One comment; I think it is very, very, very important to point out that the quotes you presented about what we can be sure of with respect to Jesus life is based on the evidence currently available. If I grant you what I wrote above, surely you can agree that we may simply not have certain evidence which could complete shed a different light on our current thoughts and conclusions and speculations. Unless I'm mistaken, the current 'evidence' really boils down to the bible and a few references to Jesus by name and references to his followers. This really only gives us 4 unanimously agreeing texts about who Jesus was and what happened around his death (most of the Nag Hammadi library is discarded by Christian sects-- while true that most of it was of later origin, it does offer alternative views as to who Jesus really was...). These are most likely based at least partially on each other or the Q document, so in my mind we have variations on maybe 2 completely independent sources? 3 at best? My point is that I think it would fallacious to assume that the gospels give us an extremely solid bedrock upon which to form further hypotheses in the first place. We take what we want to be fact and rationalize our way around the rest.
--- Fact: Jesus died, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found to be empty, and his disciples saw him for example.
--- Mistranslation or obviously explainable: Jesus was born simultaneously during the census of Quirinius and the reign of Herod, the angel appeared to Joseph or Mary and/or both of them, conflicting genealogies that take Jesus back to Abraham or Adam, whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, what day he actually died on (Passover or the night before), how long his ministry was, when he cleansed the temple, how many animals Jesus rode into Jerusalem on, etc.

Point? I just want to illustrate that there are definite illustrations of disagreement between gospel writers. On one hand, yes - the core claims are still all there. On the other hand, I would have figured things like where this person was born would be easily agreed upon. Presumably the gospel writers talked to (or talked to people who talked to) Mary and/or Joseph and in finding out about Gabriel's visit to one or both of them could also have found out where he was actually born?

To be continued...

jwhendy said...

cont...

- Next point about reliability of history in general and the standards with which we scrutinize. I think it's fair to scrutinize Jesus far more than any other secular figure at the time. Why? Because he was allegedly infamously more important, amazing, phenomenal, life changing, etc. At least 1 year and perhaps 3 years transpired while Jesus healed countless, delivered sermons which were supposedly revolutionary, got into spats with high figures of Jewish law and culture, raised at least 2 or more from the dead, and even had enough people believe in him that they were going to try to make him king. So, I see a 'continuum' with which we should expect and/or demand evidence. In 2000 years if someone is trying to prove my existence, I think your statement will hold true -- the anecdotal records of my blog posts may be enough to substantiate my existence. If claims were made that I performed miracles or rose others the dead and all folks in 2000 years find are blog records and an expired facebook account... should they believe? If they find the type of evidence and testimony from others that is exactly the same as other historical figures of my day and age... should they suspect or put faith in the claim that I was anything special?

- Lastly, I agree about not being able to just walk away from what history does tell us, even if improbable. We cannot ignore an expert opinion that certain things are likely to have happened. On the other hand, I side with John that given the success of science in all other areas, a supernatural explanation should be the last thing we use to fill in the story line. Sure -- a following of people emerged in the 1st century surrounding a figure, Jesus of which is said this, this, and this. Yes -- those things so far seem true. Is it objective evidence for his status as god, though? I think not.

This was my last and closing point: the 'evidence' seems only to be convincing to those who already believe. As a result, I'm tempted to postulate hypotheses that attack the so called 'evidence' itself as reliable. As I said, 'evidence' should be such that from it an objective, testable hypothesis may be formed. The closer the hypothesis, the more unanimous the agreement about it should be. So far, there is no evidence that the resurrection hypothesis is accomplishing this. One issue may be that the disbelievers 'aren't seeing it the right way.' Another issue might be that those who hold it as true are unwilling to see it any other way.

jwhendy said...

@busterggi: hilarious! I was having the exact same conversation with my wife at dinner! She is a believer and commented that it is indeed interesting how flaky historical record should be and that we really can't know some things and that, accordingly, atheism has to make a 'leap' from not knowing to being certain that god does not exist.

I said that I agreed up to 'we cannot know certain things' but said that once you reach that point the divide between theism and agnosticism just depends on what the 'default' should be. I made the point that since so many things are explained so well in our world as the result of the scientific method, the default position should be to expect that everything has a natural, scientifically demonstrable reasons. Only when objective, substantial, incredibly powerful evidence is presented should we shift our default position to a supernatural explanation theory.

She brought up the subject of the '4 facts' since we had been talking about them earlier and to illustrate that we would never conclude 'resurrection' under normal circumstances I brought in... ELVIS! I asked what her answer is to the fact that so many claim to have seen him? I also asked what if his grave was shown to be empty in conjunction with those visions. I asked if she would think he rose from the dead and she said, 'No because I don't believe in resurrection.' I looked up from my mouthful of food and we caught eyes at which point she added, 'Except for Jesus' and I said, 'See!!? Any other time we would absolutely dismiss any evidence that suggested a resurrection unless it was ridiculously overwhelming, but for some reason in Jesus' case we accept it completely on faith!'

Anyway, I just thought it was awesome that we both thought of Elvis as a reasonable analogy!

Lyvvie said...

"This fails to address the logic of worship..."

Sorry but this made me laugh, as someone who feels no need to worship a god in order to beg for favors or favor. I view the practice as illogical and waste of time - time that would be better spent in action actually helping.

The rest of the comment was typically smug and insulting of zealous christians.

"This fails to address out of body experiences..."

If you'd take the time to research the medical studies done on this topic you'll find it does answer the question.

Also, from where did you cut/paste that paragraph on algorithmic programming as I'd love to read the original.

Unknown said...

Nice to see rational, civil, and legitimate discussion on this site...
You have heard the statement "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
It may be cliche but it's true...
Historical Jesus...the great majority of legitimate historians believe that Jesus Christ was a historical figure...that is why the discovery channel, history channel, a&e, all put out those reconstructionist videos in search of the 'real jesus'...
To casually dismiss the idea that Jesus never existed because you haven't seen the resources to validate him... is to ignore all the writings that do exist.... (more than two), as well as the many documents that indirectly acknowledge him...as well as the impact his life and teachings have had on the world, the hostile witnesses such as the Jews that mention him with disdain in the mishnah and gemmorah... (That is very unscientific research by the way...to fail to include all evidence...) For the many posts I have seen on here that refer to science as their replacement or reason for their lack of faith... why would you be so flippant about the historical Jesus and merely attempt to attack the lack of historical writings (which by the way is more like 11 or 12 solid examples) Explain the faith of the disciples, the motive good men to fabricate a willful lie, hostile witnesses... etc.
In addition to this, science changes weekly... if science was held as accountable for their retractions and new theories as Toyota is... scientism would be dead....
I'm rambling, but come on... imaginary friend...??? would you still think your friend imaginary if you saw footsteps along side of you, and people moving around 'your friend' as they pass???

Unknown said...

I apologize for the sloppiness of the post... I was in a hurry and that is exactly what it looks like... a sloppy post written by someone in a hurry to get their view in....

I didn't become a believer until I was 18... and quite honestly, I came by faith that was based on the truth of the scriptures... only later did I find the reasonable evidence to rationally embrace the Christian worldview...
If there is conclusive evidence that there is no God... I would walk tomorrow... as Paul said in Corinthians...if only in this life we have hope in a risen Lord... we are to be pitied more than all men...

jwhendy said...

@write from Ron: I think you responded to me. Hey, I'm open to new evidence! Would you kindly post tidbits from the 11-12 examples you are aware of that directly mention Jesus by name (not by a title like Chrestus) from the 1st century? To establish these witnesses and references as reliable, I think the above criteria are necessary. Otherwise:

- they only mention a title and cannot by themselves be attributed to the historical Jesus that the gospels refer to; according to Paul, false prophets and messiahs were to be worried about so presumably a reference to 'Christ' could easily have been someone else.
- the writers need to have been alive during Jesus time or at least prior to the end of the 1st century; preferably dated to between 30-100AD, the approximate dates attributed to the epistles and gospels. If this criteria is not met, I see no reason to disregard them as accurate -- none of the Nag Hammadi library is accepted as canon largely due to either 1) it not corresponding to the synoptic/John portrayal of Jesus and 2) because they were not written close enough to the time of Jesus life/death.

So... I can maybe find 3 if you toss in Pliny that meet this criteria. Talmudic references may be as late as 300CE, so I don't know how those fall into the category you assert.

Lastly, I think you miss the point a little. I'm looking for references that attest to Jesus having at least some of the nature attributed to him in the gospels. At best I can find extra-biblical references simply stating:
- there was a man named Jesus (or Chrestus or Christus) who was crucified (or received the high punishment)
- he was controversial
- people now follow his laws

My primary point was to illustrate not that evidence for his historical existence is not present, but simply that evidence for a supernatural existing man-god is not present to the degree that I would expect. Even one extra-biblical reference to miracles, a reported virgin birth, ascension, birth announced by an angel... something, anything to work with other than only having the gospels.

Taken in that light, it seems like what we would expect to find if Jesus was not anything special other than to his followers. Some people became convinced about something that happened 2000 years ago which is all but inaccessible to us at present. They chose to follow him while the rest of the world, as far as literary/documentation evidence goes... ignored him. My issue is not with the fact that did not ignore his existence historically (as presumably you can provide 11-12 contemporary sources), but that they seemed to ignore everything about his existence that would make me believe his divinity.

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "I am left in a difficult predicament. You are correct that it appears that all the available evidence can lead us to be reasonably sure of Jesus actual existence as a historical person and even possibly sure of the 4 'facts' surrounding his death and the resulting band of followers. In honesty I'm not sure what to do with this. I am stuck in a middle ground, finding significant reasons to doubt the resurrection as a conclusion drawn from these 'facts' but also not able to dismiss them. I'm left to keep thinking."

I think that is a very reasonable and honest response. I would not try to browbeat you or anyone else to accept my conclusion, but I do think we need to start with the facts, however difficult they may be.

"If I grant you what I wrote above, surely you can agree that we may simply not have certain evidence which could complete shed a different light on our current thoughts and conclusions and speculations. Unless I'm mistaken, the current 'evidence' really boils down to the bible and a few references to Jesus by name and references to his followers. This really only gives us 4 unanimously agreeing texts about who Jesus was and what happened around his death"

I think it may be a little better than 4 - we have to remember that the Bible was not one book, but many, so we have the 4 gospels plus Paul plus Acts plus Josephus plus Tacitus, at least, and some would say Thomas as well. If we go behind the gospels to the supposed sources, we still have Mark, Q, M, L, John's "signs source", Acts, Paul, Tacitus and Josephus, and of course, maybe Thomas.

The important point is that the scholars tell us this is more than enough and more and better sources than we have for most other contemporary documents. I could give many references, but here is one:

A.N. Sherwin-White, classical historian, in "Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament", pp 187-189:

"The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time.... Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core."

"So, it is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism... that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious."

As to finding new evidence strong enough to overturn that evidence, it is hard to see how that could occur. In fact, all the signs point in the other direction. For example, John's Gospel used to be considered to be unhistorical, dated late second century, until a fragment was discovered dated to the first half of the second century. Now recent archaeological studies are confirming that John has a solid historic core that could only have been known to someone familiar with Judea and Jerusalem before AD70. You can read it online in Jesus & Archaeology, J Charlesworth (editor) where von Wahlde looked at 20 sites with details unique to John and found that at least 16 of them were archaeologically accurate. He concludes: [The archaeology] "demonstrates the full extent of the accuracy and the detail of the Evangelist's knowledge. .... The topographical references .... are entirely historical. Rather the Gospel represents a mixture of traditions some of which are quite accurate, detailed and historical".

(more to come)

unkleE said...

Hendy (continued - sorry this was so long)

"This was my last and closing point: the 'evidence' seems only to be convincing to those who already believe."

I think it is often true that each of us (believer, unbeliever, agnostic) tends to hold on to what we believe. But former atheist Anthony Flew calls the resurrection "the best-attested miracle claim in history" and says that the evidence points to christianity being the only possible revealed theism. Is it a coincidence that he debated the resurrection several times with christian philosopher Gary Habermas, and Habermas was generally judged to have presented the better case? And not long ago I read on the Infidels Forum of two long time (more than a decade) atheists who converted and the historical Jesus was a factor in their change of mind.

So I don't know if any of that helps. Please let me know if you'd like further quotes to demonstrate what I have claimed. But please note that John's original statement is not supported by the historical evidence, but is mere assertion. I think it is not the only statement like that he has made.

Thanks for your comments and your open attitude to me.

Hats said...

The only reasonable and rational explanation for reality is the Mind of God.

Really? Explanation is only possible in the context of existence, and therefore existence itself needs no "explanation". If "God" were responsible for reality, then you wouldn't be able to know what was real and what wasn't; it would all be subject to the subjective will of the "mind of God", and explanation, in the sense you intend, would be meaningless.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: thank you for your thoughtful response. With respect to these historical facts, I wonder if the jury will ever be convinced one way or another. You are correct that we tend to hold our positions. I will add that lack of what I felt was strong evidence is exactly what urged me onward to continuing questioning.

I have saved both of your references. They are strongly worded and do sound to support highly the idea that given the rise of the disciples, the various texts that exist, etc. the best answer is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Perhaps that's not what they assert and merely want to support his historical existence. I don't doubt this (much whatsoever). I just doubt the reliability of the supernatural claims made about him.

I also think it is not too hard to find others who are probably as educated and intelligent as the two authors you quote who dismiss the resurrection as possible. Here is a transcript from W.L Craig vs. Bart Ehrman: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm. Here is Ehrman's qualification of himself: "I want to say at the outset something similar to what he said at the beginning of his speech. I used to believe absolutely everything that Bill just presented. He and I went to the same evangelical Christian college, Wheaton, where these things are taught. Even before that I went to a yet more conservative school, Moody Bible Institute, where "Bible" is our middle name. We were taught these things there even more avidly. I used to believe them with my whole heart and soul. I used to preach them and try to convince others that they were true. But then I began studying these matters, not simply accepting what my teachers had said, but looking at them deeply myself. I learned Greek and started studying the New Testament in the original Greek language. I learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament. I learned Latin, Syriac, and Coptic to be able to study the New Testament manuscripts and the non-canonical traditions of Jesus in their original languages. I immersed myself in the world of the first century, reading non-Christian Jewish and pagan texts from the Roman Empire and before, and I tried to master everything written by a Christian from the first three hundred years of the church.

I became a historian of antiquity, and for twenty-five years now I have done my research in this area night and day. I'm not a philosopher like Bill; I'm a historian dedicated to finding the historical truth. After years of studying, I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong."
He is quite prolific, demonstrated here: http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm.

In any case, I simply want to point out that educated men and women in matters historical, cultural, lingual, etc. continue to disagree not necessarily on the pure fact of existence but on what kind of existence.

To take a bigger picture stance, I doubt the resurrection historically for more than historical reasons. That may sound like an illogical statement; what I mean is that I do support the idea of a cumulative case. I doubt the historical certainty of the resurrection because I would expect other things to be true about the world which I do not see and other things not to be true which I do see:

- disagreement among even Christians on what Jesus meant. How can 'This is my body' vs. 'Do this in remembrance of me' be so divisive?

To be continued...

jwhendy said...

Cont...

- Such widespread disagreement on who/what God actually is. Your quotes definitely sound convincing and do (let me reassure you) force me to be aware of the strong historical support for Jesus that learned men hold, but most nonbelievers would not even be having this discussion with you and open to your sources! If Jesus is so obviously God, how in the world is the the majority all peoples getting this wrong? How can one even begin to believe in someone else without the solid evidence that Jesus has to support him?
--- Another interesting side comment to this is why Christianity lost presence in the area in which it originated. My check of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel shows Lebanon to be ~30% Christian and that's at the extreme top of the list percentage wide. It's older but been either non-influential on Judaism (Israel) or overrun by Islam (Syria and Jordan).
--- In addition, it would seem that Christian nations are primarily those who were contacted by western European nations... not surprising due to the influence of Constantine. Even in reading a bit about Russian prevalence it seems that someone with ruling power had at least a reasonable amount to do with its spread (aka not willfully accepted via personal witness by the population).

Okay, okay. Enough from me. These are all objections I've now become a lot more troubled by.

Conclusion: you may very well be right that John made a false assertion to ignore the evidence you presented. On the other hand, given all of the other things I find lacking or present which, I believe, contradict the idea that a savior has risen and is active in the world, his statement becomes correct: the spread of Christianity was via legend or hallucination events. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, this is the only explanation to explain the following that spread despite him not actually being god: delusion, myth, made up, etc.

While John cannot simply dismiss the resurrection based on historical facts (as you've provided ample support of these facts), I do think he could be justified if he were to make that statement in light of some of the things I've pointed out. I don't know if the historical evidence can be relied upon 100% for any conclusion about the resurrection. I can see it as supporting it, but also as untrustworthy since we have no frame of reference for believing that a man-god came down from heaven in human form and was killed but didn't stay dead. It is, then the case as a whole that leads me to reject the conclusion of the historical evidence.

jwhendy said...

Cont...

- unanswered prayers resulting in back bending over literal, clear statements like 'Ask anything in my name and it shall be done for you'
--- I back this up further with the claim that no one in the bible ever comes to Jesus for healing and is not given it. Some did not have enough faith to be healed, but in no specific instance does someone request physical healing and not receive it. The man on the mat has his sins forgiven... but walks away healed nonetheless if you want to bring in that story.
--- I do not see the unqualified healing of those prayed for by Christians today
- in my doubt, I have prayed through this time, 'Jesus help me to know you', 'Where are you?', 'How am I supposed to believe in you', etc... things like that. Presumably, God really, really, really wants me to believe but won't do anything specific because he doesn't want me to be an automaton and I need to believe on faith. I do not find this to be a supported claim biblically either. In another post on this blog, I listed 10 or so passages where Jesus references the fact that we should specifically believe as the result of the works he does.
- evolution. I have heard countless, countless talks on the general Christian story and how that leads us to the need to give our lives to Jesus. What's the story? In the beginning man was with God, then we turned from him, now we see evidence of a plethora of evil in the world and obviously need a savior, Jesus is that savior as the one perfect offering to God on behalf of our sins, now we need to give our lives to him to be saved.
--- except what if there was no 'man with God in the beginning.' What would that mean in the context of evolution? When did we evolve enough reason and will to 'turn away from God' vs. being like animals?
--- when was the world perfect such that after we sinned, the suffering we experience entered the world?
--- to say that event he principles implied in Genesis are fallacious would surely force us to toss out some of Paul's writings such as [paraphrase] 'as sin entered the world through one man, Adam, the world is restored through one man, Jesus.' Paul derives a lot of significance from the correlation to the first sinner as a single individual (Adam) and the single perfect, obedient redeemer as one single individual (Jesus). It would seem that to say Paul meant that there was a collective group who sinned would not be true. Also, to say that there was no first sinner overrides the fact that sin entered the world. It would seem, then, that sin is really just what we perceive as 'bad' which is something in our nature we strive against as we grow in intellect, will, and contemplation of the good and that it has always been this way.

To be continued...

jwhendy said...

Shoot... posting got fudged. Read the three posts above in the order:
1st
3rd
2nd

The one directly above this should be read before the one two above this. Sorry.

Chris Jones said...

or.. Intelligent design? Meet ass-backward design all over the place (blind spots and such)

Unknown said...

@Cole:Maybe reason isn't something that can answer the question of our origins
Is this not the atheist equivalent of saying, “God moves in mysterious ways, he is above all reason”. If so, then isn’t the atheist doing exactly what they criticise others for doing?

After all, those who believe God created the universe cannot offer any reasons why there should be a self-existent being that has always existed either."
But the first premise of the argument goes: ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’ In other words, if something begins it’s reasonable to ask ourselves why it began. But God had no beginning and therefore asking why there should be a God is like asking why the laws of logic should exist rather than asking why a specific event took place.

This may commit the fallacy of composition.
The argument is not saying that the universe had a cause because everything within it had a cause, instead it states that things don’t just happen for no particular reason. Therefore it doesn't commit the fallacy of composition.

The important question is this: which makes most sense of the data, a created universe or an uncreated universe? John cannot argue that God doesn’t exist simply because it’s possible he doesn’t exist.

Moreover, it's not at all clear that there can even be causality without time.
Why is time needed for a cause to occur? We know that the non-physical (such as gravity, electromagnetic waves) can cause things, so if the non-physical can effect the physical why can’t the timeless cause time?

The Christian physicist David Wilkinson makes this point about time, cause and effect in his book:
And this very also also happens to feature as the question of the week on William Lane Craig’s site.

John said...

Michael,

I believe there was a First Cause. But it can't be proven. There is a disagreement between some scientists and William Lane Craig on the issue of what time is. Causation, according to them, is intertwined with time. How can there even be motion without time? If something is timeless it doesn't change. It's frozen. If God is outside time He doesn't move or change and therefore He can't create, think, or act.

Condider this:

Causality is a temporal concept.

EG1 - In our experience, causes always bear a temporal relation to their effects. They are either temporally prior to, or perhaps simultaneous with, their effects.

The conclusion of EG1 is constantly confirmed and never falsified by emperical observation. Even if one grants (as many philosophers do not) that some causes are simultanious with their effects, (as Craig does) those causes are themselves states of other things that pre-exist the effects in question. Example:

Suppose that one thinks the pressure of a man's posterior is simultanious with the depression in that cussion. The pressure is due to the position and posture of the man's body, and this in turn is a state of something - the man's body - that existed before it was in that state. The total cause thus includes something - the man's body - that existed prior to the depression in the cushion.

For something to be "prior to" then it must exist in time.

a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y

b) But nothing could exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction)

c) It is impossible for time to have been created

d) Time is an essential component to the universe

e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created

f) It follows that God does not exist.

There's disagreement on time and causality. It can't be proven that there is a First Cause.

John said...

Michael,

Gravity is the curvature of space and time. It's not non-physical. Neither is the other example you gave.

John said...

Michael,

Who told you that gravity and electromagnetic waves are not physical?

unkleE said...

Hendy:

Thanks for your comments. You are certainly doing a lot of thinking.

"your references .... do sound to support highly the idea that given the rise of the disciples, the various texts that exist, etc. the best answer is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead."

Obviously I believe that Jesus was resurrected, but that was not what I was arguing here, or what I think the quotes "prove". I was making the more preliminary point about the historical "facts". It would require much more discussion (more than can be done in comments on a blog) to argue for the resurrection from those facts, but a good case can be made, as you are aware. Yes, highly thoughtful people (like Bart Ehrman) don't accept that case. But it remains true that most historians seem to accept the facts that I listed. That is the starting point, and a theory about legends as John suggested seems to have no historical basis.

"These are all objections I've now become a lot more troubled by."

I think there are too many of these points to discuss here, but I do believe good answers can be given on all these points, many of which I have pondered too. But I think there is an important general point here.

Most of the reasons to believe in God are, in my opinion, related to the "big" issues, like Why does a universe exist at all? What does it mean to be human? What are ethics? Who is Jesus? I think these are fundamental questions. And I believe it can be argued that christianity provides better answers to these fundamental questions than any other belief - in some cases the only answers.

But most of the matters you raise are what I would call secondary questions. There has to be a universe, there have to be human beings, there has to be human rationality and ethics, there have to be religious experiences, and there has to be a life of Jesus and a church before most of these "secondary questions" can even be asked and make sense.

If this is so, then I cannot see how the secondary questions can reasonably used to destroy the conclusions of the fundamental questions. So my response to your difficulties is to say that (1) there are stronger reasons to keep believing, and (2) there are answers to all of them.

If you wanted to discuss these matters further than we can here, and if you thought discussing with me would be helpful, please email me on unklee@gmail.com.

Best wishes.

Chuck said...

I love how believers want to assert that the Jesus Legend could not have grown because there wasn't enough time. That would surely be true if legends weren't already in motion when Jesus arrived, whiche they were. Apocalyptic Judaism of the 1st Century anticipated Daniel's Son of Man which would precede a New Age. The observed mistake that Paul thought the Kingdom of God was imminent due to the Jesus Legend is perfectly in line with the strong legends at play. The believer makes the mistake that legendary thinking was non-existent prior to Jesus. It wasn't and disempowered 1st century Jews applied syncretism to their common legends to come up with The Jesus Legend to give them the status they were not provided either in politics or religion.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: thanks for the continued time in discussion. Perhaps email would be best, but I'm more or less familiar with the 'fundamental' cases for the existence of god. I definitely don't have extreme knowledge of all of them, but if I'm right, you are referring to things like the cosmological argument, ontological, argument from the point that without god we should expect there to be nothing, that god is the only reason for objective morality, etc.

Feel free to email me further thoughts: jw.hendy [at] gmail [dot] com.

My delving into these types of 'fundamental' proofs has, at present, always left me unsatisfied with either side. I don't think science has offered a conclusive answer via bubble universes, multiverses, infinite expansion/contraction, etc. (I'll admit I don't understand the details of these hypotheses, only the general descriptions) but I certainly am no longer convinced by the god solution, either. The main reason for this reduces to this:

- everything in the realm I am aware of has a cause and it would seem that if we continued regressing cause by cause, we would come to some first cause
- god is that which needs no cause
- the only cause that could have caused the first cause... is god

I just find all arguments on this plane a bit preposterous. In 'normal speak':

- so far I've observed that everything I know of happens like this (been caused)
- the universe which is pretty much beyond my comprehension with respect to magnitude, age, nature, etc. must also behave like everything else I've experienced
- my solution to how the universe exists is that a timeless, spaceless, disembodied mind created it

So, we take the unknown and hypothesize something even further removed from anything known to exist to solve the problem. The main problem is this: we have continued to advance in answering or understanding most every other problem science fixes its sites on. I could be wrong so feel free to offer evidence against this claim if you are aware of areas where science is at a complete, throw-up-the-hands stand still about the matter.

As this is the case, I see no reason to even depart from what I consider the default stance: there is probably a natural, scientifically explainable solution to everything. At the end of the day, I think this is where I've come to and where I disagree with theists.

I appreciate you, uncle e, and many of my more open friends as you are far more open about the fact that we cannot know everything. Given this, I think regardless of supposed reasons supporting god's existence 'fundamentally' or 'secondarily', we will simply reach a stand still. We'll be looking at the same lists of philosophical 'proofs', the fact of our existence, the more or less universal core morals of the world both be taking these to say two different things!

You choose to accept god as the best explanation; I choose to refrain from making an exception to the scientific approach which has answered so many other questions and simply think we are probably approaching more and more answers to all of these questions.

Lastly, I actually do think the secondary answers can inform our believe about the 'fundamentals.' I say this because 1) I do not believe your 'fundamental' evidence to be at all conclusive and 2) I believe that asking, 'Okay, I'll grant that the fundamental truths could be true; now I'll look for secondary evidence of these fundamental truths in existence' is a valid way to evaluate the more basic question of existence.

I firmly believe that the issues I raised above cast doubt on whether the fundamental truth of god's even existence as a loving, omniscient, omnipotent creator can be asserted in the first place.

unkleE said...

"Chuck O'Connor said: "I love how believers want to assert that the Jesus Legend could not have grown because there wasn't enough time."

Actually I don't assert that. Rather, I assert that, as far as I can discover, the majority of mainstream scholars conclude that the legend hypothesis about the resurrection cannot be true historically because the facts point differently.

So, can you offer good mainstream scholarly support or other good evidence for your legend hypothesis, or is it just an idea without evidence?

Chuck said...

Read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. I was once a believer until I encountered Professor Ehrman's arguments. Or continue resting in your delusions. Your choice. By the way is the empty tomb referred hypothesis supported by Corinthians one that was circulated 3 or 20 years from Paul's encountering it? Scholars are unsure of the time horizon. Absolute refutation of legend hypothesis should be more certain of a less variant time frame. Get out of your Evangelical bubble and learn a few things son.

unkleE said...

Hendy:

I will email you in due course and see if any useful discussion can result. So here I'll be brief:

" I see no reason to even depart from what I consider the default stance: there is probably a natural, scientifically explainable solution to everything."

I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Let us define "natural" as being the space-time universe of matter and energy which we inhabit. If God exists, he exists in a sense outside this natural world.

Science is the natural, default if you like, way to approach and answer questions about this natural world. But science has limited itself to the natural world, to what we can directly experience, measure and test. It works by methodological naturalism, and assumption that even theistic scientists generally make.

So I cannot see how science can be the default means of resolving questions about the existence of God, who is beyond the area science has mapped out for itself. Science will be a tool in resolving these questions, but it cannot by definition be the only tool, not even the main tool. Its role is to set out the facts, but it cannot resolve them.

Thus "bubble universes, multiverses, infinite expansion/contraction, etc" can never be explanations for the existence of the universe or the "natural world" because they themselves are part of the universe or the natural world. Either the universe has no explanation or its explanation lies outside itself. (Just as either God has no explanation or his/her/its explanation lies outside itself.)

The theistic claim is that it makes more sense to postulate that an eternal God cannot be explained than that an obviously temporal universe cannot be explained.

But I'll see if I can present that case a little better by email. I look forward to further discussion. Best wishes.

unkleE said...

Chuck O'Connor said: "Read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. I was once a believer until I encountered Professor Ehrman's arguments. Or continue resting in your delusions. "

1. I have read a little of Bart Ehrman, but I don't recall anything about the legend hypothesis. Everything I've read of his is about textual criticism, which is not related. Can you provide a quote please?

2. Even if he does support such a hypothesis, he is one scholar. I asked if you can show that the consensus of mainstream scholars concludes that the legend hypothesis is a correct explanation of the resurrection story, or even plausible. I claim that they have concluded otherwise and can offer evidence for that if required. So can you support the counter claim?

3. I tend to find when someone says something like "Or continue resting in your delusions." they don't have evidence, and this comment is a last resort. Can you show otherwise in this case?

Thanks.

Chuck said...

1. Nope. Pick up the book. I am not an Evangelical so quote mining is distasteful to me. If you choose not to then stay ignorant. No skin of my nose.

2. An appeal to authority using terms like "most" when discussing historical critical theory might work for your authoratarian driven evangelical psychology but it doesn't work for me. I never argued Jesus was a legend by the way. I argued that early Christians under the guidance of Paul piggybacked existing legends to create an early apocalyptic sect centered on Jesus.

3. I find when supernaturalists find someone who calls their unfounded assumptions for what they are they retreat into the "no argument" argument.

Oh and what do "most" historians say about the recency of 1 Corinthians relative to the resurrection legend? Thanks. I still consider you deluded son.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: I hear you, but I think you might have slightly changed my point about the default stance being a probably natural explanation for everything. What I'm getting at is:

- Issue: how did the universe come about? Did it come about? In what manner did it come about? So on...

- Potential answers:
--- God
--- A natural explanation we do not understand yet

You said: So I cannot see how science can be the default means of resolving questions about the existence of God

I don't think this is the case. I'm pointing out that I have not seen a reason to have to involve god in the first place. Your statement comes across, to me, as saying 'god is the best hypothesis and science has no right to handle questions on his existence.' I'm merely stating that in so many other areas that were previously not understood, science has made advances. I see no reason to bend 'just this once' to explain something like the universe with something even more unknowable.

Even so, these types of arguments really only ask if there is something outside of our cause-causes-an-effect understanding. In that case, god could be a 14th dimension boy on a video game who created us by accident, a cosmic force we will never be able to directly or indirectly either observe or explain, etc. There could be any number of cosmic, outer-dimensional 'things' that science cannot tackle without assuming that the only probable one is a trinitarian god who waited 13.5-14million years to send his son and reveal himself personally.

I think my stance is logical, perhaps not. Again, to reiterate, I don't think either side satisfactorily answers the question so far, but I am hesitant to agree that science can never answer the question because the only possible answer is one which is itself out of the bounds of science. Is this the main stream scientific belief about the universe? That it will never be understood scientifically since the tool employed is in its very nature unable to propose an answer?

Maybe by 'natural', all I really mean is 'not a super power enabled personification of humans who we know as the god of the israelites, jesus, and the holy spirit and he happens to care for us and love us and communicate to the hearts of and answer the prayers of only those who believe.

Lastly, we take much of the bible as literal truth. To be a Christian one has to. I have issues with resting on a ton of it (the prophets, psalms, 'historical' accounts of the patriarchs, Moses, etc.) as 'really real' and proposing answers to our deepest questions while merely writing off anything that gets disproven down the road as 'figurative.' Why would creationists ever have believed such a story in the first place? Why does it take science for christians to step back and say, 'Just kidding, it's figurative'? There are TONS of sites that try to point out how scripture scientifically explains the world (the earth is suspended by nothing, for example), while ignoring fallacious creation accounts, flood stories, statements like insects have four legs, etc.

I would expect the authentic word of the creator himself to contain something, anything that science has yet to explain otherwise to validate itself. If the word of god can inspire someone to write something to be considered revolutionary like 'God is love' or 1 Cor 13, the Beatitudes, etc... couldn't there easily have been a divine revelation about nature or the origin of the world that could have been passed on to us as proof that only a creator outside of space and time could have known these things?

I know people all the time who repeat 'prophecies' they heard from 'the lord.' Can't he give scientific prophesies just as easily as bold, generally-applicable-to-anyone-prophecies ('I feel the lord calling us into deeper relationship with him' or 'I really feel the lord saying - give yourself to me with your whole self')?

unkleE said...

Chuck O'Connor said: "1. Nope. Pick up the book. I am not an Evangelical so quote mining is distasteful to me. If you choose not to then stay ignorant. No skin of my nose." In other words, you don't have evidence you wish to offer. "Quote mining" is a meaningless pejorative term. I quoted recognised experts in support of my understanding of the facts, I quoted them in context and I could quote many, many more.

"An appeal to authority"
An appeal to authority is a fallacy in a philosophical proof but is an essential part of the scientific and historical methods. Your denigration of it shows that you are not following those methods.

" I find when supernaturalists find someone who calls their unfounded assumptions for what they are they retreat into the "no argument" argument."
No. In this case you found someone establishing what the best experts have concluded, and you responded with assertions but no evidence.

"Get out of your Evangelical bubble and learn a few things son."
It seems like you are working on the idea that if you haven't got evidence, try gratuitous denigration. If I base my views on the best evidence and you base your on assertion, who is is a bubble? BTW, I am 64 years old, so if you want to call me names, "Gramps" may be more accurate than son! : )

what do "most" historians say about the recency of 1 Corinthians relative to the resurrection legend?"
I imagine you know the answer to this. Those I have read say Paul in 1 Cor 15 is quoting from a creed written close to Jesus' life. Why do you ask?

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "I'm pointing out that I have not seen a reason to have to involve god in the first place."

Well, the question is on the agenda already. We are on a blog devoted to disproving God's existence. And if (as I assert but haven't attempted to demonstrate here) naturalistic options cannot explain the facts then God is the the last option standing. Like Sherlock Homes said; "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So my task is to demonstrate why I make that assertion.

"god could be a 14th dimension boy on a video game who created us by accident, a cosmic force we will never be able to directly or indirectly either observe or explain, etc."

I suppose. But I believe I can show that those hypotheses don't explain all the facts. I will attempt to do that.

"we take much of the bible as literal truth. To be a Christian one has to"

I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made by critics of christianity. John Loftus may make it, I'm pretty sure Bart Ehrman makes it. It all depends on what is meant by "literal truth". Historians tell me that the sort of fundamentalist definition of truth is relatively recent in christianity, and probably not the position of the majority christians today.

I am considering the Bible simply as another historical document. Of course I believe it is more than that (though not what fundamentalists think either), but I cannot start with any assumptions in a discussion like this. As soon as you treat it as a human set of documents, the picture changes. I think in the end it can be shown to be a human document inspired by God (whatever that means), but not written by God.

I'll try to address all this in an email. Thanks for the continuing discussion.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: fair enough points made on all bases and I do appreciate the dialog.

I only want to comment on the biblical matter... I would agree that a fundamental approach is not mainstream. What I wanted to illustrate is that one seems to be standing on shaky ground once on admits of historical fallacy in the bible. To admit that the creation account, Noah and the Ark, Jericho, the Exodus, etc. are not historically accurate depictions calls into question other historical claims made.

Is there a tremendous difference between using this logic:
- given the documentation in the new testament and the resulting following, the historical Jesus almost certainly existed.

and this?:
- given the fact that the bible refers to creation, god's deeds surrounding the exodus, a literal Adam and the garden (not only in Genesis but by Paul), and the fact that so many Jews followed this god, those events almost certainly happened.

Does this make sense? I have struggled to see how to 'correctly' interpret the bible given obvious fallacies (humanness) contrasted with it's supposed perfection (divinity). This seems to raise all kinds of flags, doesn't it?

God = perfect, good, can do all things, creator of the universe, inspirer of the prophets, supposedly foretold 300+ things about Jesus that were fulfilled, heals people all the time, etc.

Bible = God's inspired word written through humans (yes, whatever that means)

Bible = contradictory, scientifically and historically inaccurate, prescribes not killing/then killing, and has been abandoned as literal not only every single time science disproves something (creation, Noah and the Ark, Jericho, etc.) but only when science disproves it.

It would be a lot more convincing to me if it:
- contained no errors or contradictions
--- only historically and scientifically true statements made
- if it did contain errors, that Christians were somehow able to reject these things as errors prior to them being discovered by science

Just to illustrate a tad further... Christians (at least W.L Craig) would hold that the best explanation of the 4 facts (death, burial in tomb, empty tomb and postmortem appearances) is the resurrection. What about these facts?
- The number of generations in the genealogies differ
- One of Jesus genealogies felt the need to trace him all the way back to '...son of Adam who was the son of god.' Adam did not exist.
- The gospels disagree on where Jesus was born (Bethlehem or Nazareth) and cite prophecies to support that he was born in both of them
- The gospels differ on who the angel appeared to
- The gospels differ on where the women were standing at his death (far off or right there)
- The gospels differ on how long he preached (1 or 3 years)
- The gospels differ on how many animals he rode into Jerusalem on (1 or 2)
- The gospels differ on what day he was crucified
- The gospels differ on when he was crucified
- The gospels differ on which women found the tomb

Doesn't it raise a red flag that a gospel writer preaching the good news is using a non-existing person to convince others of his divinity? Or using differing birthplaces to attribute fulfilled prophecy?

To follow W.L. Craig's logic, I find that the most plausible explanation is that one or more human writers were searching for ways to make Jesus divine and it looks like they got caught (no Adam, for example).

In your opinion, is the writers' credibility tainted in the least because of a reference to Adam who did not exist? Does it at all illustrate that this peoples' time period was riddled with myth, superstition and far fetched explanations for the world? Could someone convinced about a 6 day creation (hypothetically they were creationists... Paul very possibly believed in a literal Adam), a flood story, and so on be deceived about other things? Could they have been so hungry for fulfilled prophecy that Jesus showed up and kind of looked like the closest thing they had?

Chuck said...

Uncle

I call you son because your thinking shows the intellectual infantalizing quality wrought by belief.

When you say "most" historians are in agreement on the character of Jesus do you mean these most?

www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

dumb ass.

If you are going to employ a stupid apologetic rhetorical trick you should know the Internet exists to debunk your "appeal to authority" (yes that is what it is because you are using a pseudo historical illustration to drive a philosophical point).

How about you grow a pair old man and look to falsify your assertions rather than selectively pick facts to reinforce your very common superstitions?

John said...

Also Michael,

Let's just say there is a First Cause. Occam's Razor is the principle that says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

I find this to be true of the Trinitarian explanation as the Creator. Clearly The One is simpler than the Three.

God the Creator as One is simpler than the Three and is therefore to be the preferred explanation.

John said...

Michael,

One all-knowing, all-powerful, gracious God is simpler that three of them as the trinity teaches and is therefore the best explanation. Will you now drop the Christian God?

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "@uncle e: fair enough points made on all bases and I do appreciate the dialog."
Me too.

"Is there a tremendous difference between using this logic ...[historical Jesus] ....and this? ... [Genesis]"
If you are looking at the Bible as historical literature, then there is all the difference in the world. Jesus is confirmed by historical analysis, the literal interpretation of Genesis is not.

"I have struggled to see how to 'correctly' interpret the bible given obvious fallacies (humanness) contrasted with it's supposed perfection (divinity)."
1. The Bible was not written by God in the way the Koran and the Book of Mormon are claimed to be. It was clearly written by people.

2. Your expectation that if it is God's revelation, it would be perfect is just that - your own expectation. If we followed your logic, the world, people and the church would all be perfect. Since none of these are, you shouldn't start with that assumption. Rather, start with what the historians tell as and then see where we go from there.

3. It isn't true that the "Bible ... has been abandoned as literal .... only when science disproves it." Jesus and the Jews used some quite non-literal interpretations of the OT, many of the early church fathers interpreted much of it allegorically, Augustine (fourth century and one of the most influential figures in church history) spoke against a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the literalist view you describe is relatively recent.

"What about these facts?"
I haven't time to address them all, but:

(i) they are largely unimportant to a historian - oral transmission has been shown to preserve the main points of stories very well whereas the tellers felt much freer to omit or change minor details, so we can generally trust the essentials;
(ii) some are not 'facts' at all - e.g. the gospels simply don't say how long Jesus' ministry was, so the 1 and 3 years are simply based in interpretation and ignorance;
(iii) most have perfectly adequate explanations, if one understands first century Judaism. The question is, can they all be explained, and can we believe all the explanations? I doubt it, but I don't really know, and nor does anyone else.

In the end, it is the wrong question. The more correct place to start is not with a hypothesis (such as an error-free Bible), and then gather facts to critique it, but rather with the facts, and thence the best explanation.

The best conclusion seems to be that the NT is a bunch of generally reliable historical documents, not without their problems and difficulties. Like any other historical document, we can extract the truth and draw conclusions while leaving the apparent errors to one side. That is the basis I suggest is most reasonable, and which I use.

I think we need to distinguish matters of faith and matters of fact. Here I am only discussing matters of fact. It is only after I draw conclusions based on the historical data that I draw conclusions about matters of faith. Then I can use different methods, and I believe God gives spiritual enlightenment to those who seek it. But our discussion hasn't got there yet.

"is the writers' credibility tainted in the least because of a reference to Adam who did not exist?"
If the writers were claiming inerrancy (they never do) or scientific accuracy, then their credibility would be "tainted". But they are simply reporting what they saw and heard. They mightn't have understood human physiology like we do, but they knew dead people didn't normally come back to life. They were much less interested in some of the details that we find important, but they were interested in the truth of the basic facts. We need to start where they're at, not impose out standards on them.

Thanks for the discussion. I can understand your difficulties, but I think you starting from the wrong place. Best wishes.

unkleE said...

Chuck O'Connor said: "When you say "most" historians are in agreement on the character of Jesus do you mean these most?

www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

dumb ass."


I am familiar with that page, and although it is biased towards the very sceptical end of scholarship (and a few people not recognised as NT scholars or historians at all), it supports what I said, not what you claim. Did you actually read it?

The point we have been discussing is John's claim that the resurrection of Jesus is "a legend based on visionary experiences" and my claim that his view is contradicted by the majority of scholars.

I counted only seven of the scholars on that page who mentioned the resurrection. Two took a view similar to John and five took a view similar to mine. So my view is vindicated even on a page biased towards sceptical scholarship! You have unfortunately kicked an own goal!

Here are a few other quotes (I can provide references to them all, but have omitted them for space reasons):

Michael Grant: "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."

EP Sanders: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know"

Paula Frederickson: "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ . . . [is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting"

Geza Vermes: "When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that . . . the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb"

Bart Ehrman: "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum."

Jacob Kremer: "by far, most scholars [or exegetes] hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."

Norman Perrin, Uni of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based."

The Jesus Seminar, represented by several scholars on that page, also concluded that the disciples had some sort of resurrection appearances, though they explain them differently.

Finally, Gary Habermas has researched the views expressed in 1400 scholarly papers over 30 years and published the results. His conclusions

"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it."

"current scholarship generally recognizes that Jesus’ early followers claimed to have had visual experiences that they at least thought were appearances of their risen Master. Fuller’s comment may be recalled that, as “one of the indisputable facts of history,” both believers as well as unbelievers can accept “[t]hat these experiences did occur.

If you have read the page you reference, you will find that it mostly discusses overall interpretation of the the life of Jesus, not so much the facts themselves and not very much the facts about the resurrection as is under discussion here.

So it is clear again that (1) I can support my statements with facts (references to scholars) whereas you cannot (your only reference said the opposite to what you were arguing), and (2) you are increasingly responding with nasty and gratuitous insults. Therefore I will not be responding further unless you change tactics.

Best wishes.

Chuck said...

Uncle Dumb Ass

John's assertion is not that the disciples thought the person of Jesus was Legend bu that their stories grew to become legend in a legendary age. The page was used to show your assertion that the idea "most" historians interpret the evidence to your conclusion is arrogant and misinformed. I don't doubt the followers of Jesus think they experienced his resurrection any more than I doubt the followers of Joseph Smith think the angel Moroni provided golden plates on which the book of Mormon was given or the followers of L Ron Hubbard practice auditing to keep Scientology working. You make a trulu biased leap when you go from reporting what the disciples said they experienced to defining it as an actuality and not legend. Your getting confused in your analysis and racing towards your preferred conclusion without considering alternate explanations. "Most" historians say the disciples report a resurrection experience. That doesn't mean there was one. Oh and quote mining is exactly what you just did dipshit when ypu plucked passages from other's work to create the appearance of concensus to your conclusion when none exists. It is a common strategy by theists who like to lie to further their superstitions.

Chuck said...

Oh and Uncle Arrogance, one more thing.

The reason I am a jerk towards you is not because I simply disagree with what you say and choose not to believe your superstitions. Nor, is it evidence of your circular scripture that I am an enemy of God.

I choose to contest your ideas in a violent manner because they lead to the kind of Calvinism that is growing in America. This Calvinism is empowering people to believe they are "good" when they oppose equal rights for homosexuals and stand in the way of honest scientific inquiry. They do it the way you do it by picking and choosing data points to support a conclusion that serves their ideology (even if the quotes they mine simply confirm a premise, not a conclusion).

I think your brand of Christianity is dishonest, ignorant, and evil.

That is why I am cruel to you because, morally speaking your ideology is equivalent to a Nazi arguing the historically validity of a master race.

I also oppose it because your reliance on ancient eye-witness testimony as 100% verifiable is shallow, your quote mining is dishonest, and your appeal to authority (when you say you aren't by the way) is a logical fallacy.

You don't have an argument, you have rehearsed apologetics I've heard from the likes of McDowell and Craig. Your premise that the disciples report a resurrection does not confirm that one happened any more than the newspaper reports that people saw Hindu statues drinking milk in 1996 confirms the "Milk Miracle" happened. In fact, if you are going to be epistemologically true than you should believe in the power of Hindu deities because the eye-witness testimony of that event combined with the video evidence and newspaper reports swamps the kind of evidence you point to as the basis of an actual event and not legend.

John said...

Also Michael,

One Eternal Person is a better foundation for the Laws Of Logic and the moral law as well. We shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity. Occam's Razor shaves away the Trinity as the Best Explanation of the evidence in favor of just Theism. All things being equal postulating three eternal persons is uneccesary. One Eternal person can do the job. In fact, it's the better explanation and therefore you must now drop the Christian God.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: I got your email. Thank you. I'll probably continue there.

I think part of the dilemma we're running into is that I'm not all that concerned with the pure historical validity of the bible. If it were merely a historical text I might study it with the same enthusiasm with which I might read about various Alaskan and North/South pole dog races that have occurred through time. In other words, the bible purely historically means nothing of impact.

Sure, from a historical study standpoint, there is value. This is my point, though... without the consideration of Jesus actually being divine, why are we even discussing the bible? You, as far as I can tell, are referring to the 'facts' to refute John saying 'meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time.' Are you simply connotating 'legend' with 'did-not-exist'? Is this any difference from the 'legend' of William Wallace who, though he existed, was reported to be a man of literally mythical characteristics and deeds? We dismiss all of these as 'legend' but do not dismiss William Wallace historically.

So, I guess what I would really be looking for is why we have any reason to place belief in the miraculous deeds attributed to Jesus? I want to point out that some of the reason we corroborate the gospels at least in part has to do with extrabiblical verification of the area, beliefs at that time, what was likely to have been said, believed, etc. As far as I know there is absolutely no extrabiblical evidence to support his miracles or even a second hand account of his rising from the dead. In other words, I believe the closest anyone comes is: "There are followers of a guy named Jesus who is reported to be the messiah". I guess Josephus (just checked) claimed Jesus appeared (he doesn't even say was reported to have resurrected... just appeared -- this could easily be in the form of a dream or spirit, not an actual body) to them... but his passage is horridly suspect and you don't have to look far at all to agree.

Anyway, the point I keep returning to is why the deduction from the 'facts' (I can concede the historical validity of some of the gospels, but I can also point out many, many contradictions in timelines and travelings between the gospels themselves as well as when compared to Paul's writings and Acts), is most probably that Jesus is the son of god and the messiah?

Do you consider the facts of the gospels to, in essence, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin through the act of the Holy Spirit, that a dove descended upon him after his baptism in the river Jordan, that he raised several from the dead, and that he rose from the dead after his crucifixion?

I'm just not getting that from these texts even if they do somewhat correspond to history. Why? Because I perceive an incongruity with how Christians interpret them. I think this sums it up:

1) in all things historical and factual, the bible contains errors because it was written by humans. What do you expect?

2) in all things related to who Jesus was i.e. his power, authority over sin and death, his state as son of god and the foretold messiah who is to come, his miracles (as these are necessary to prove his divine power) and resurrection, the gospels are completely accurate and true.

jwhendy said...

Also, I do think the bible has claims of inerrancy:

Luke 1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke seems to make a claim that he will be more accurate, perhaps, than other accounts and says that he is writing this that we may know the certainty of what we have been taught. If I told you I had researched the knowledge had about the invisible electron and then made errors here and there about the technical usage of various lab equipment and other formulas of physics and electromagnetics (the seen/known)... would you be more or less convinced when it came for me to describe the unseen/unknown?

John 21:24-25:This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


John seems to attribute his writings as 'true.' What other definition of 'true' would you use besides inerrant, that is 'without error.' You will probably respond that the gospel writers were telling the truth to the best of their knowledge but this calls into account how the best of their knowledge can be relied upon with respect to supernatural claims, miracles, and the only ever raising of a man permanently from the dead who went on to blast into heaven.

Revelation 22: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Perhaps the author only mean this book as in Revelation, but I think at least some take it to mean the bible as a whole, hence it's appearance as among the very last sentences in the whole book. I would take this caution to indicate that it is perfect exactly as it is, without error. To have error would indicate that something could be improved presumably by adding or subtracting material from the literature. Perhaps the author meant that error and all it should be left alone?

Point? The point is that at least two gospel writers make fairly bold claims about their own writings' veracity. We now have found historical inconsistencies and issues. This detracts from their statement. Humble individuals usually to not make a claim about the truth of their writing unless they are absolutely sure. To be 'absolutely sure' and then completely mess up where your savior was born, which parent the angel appeared to, whether it was noteworthy or not to mention that the mother was a virgin, etc. seems to at least partially discredit the authors' credibility in my mind.

Chuck said...

Hendy has made my case and I now exit this debate.

We will not change Uncle's mind. He wants to believe because he needs to believe, not because his research supports a consistent standard for "truth".

Uncle, Hendy brings up a good point by the way, what do you think we mean when we argue that the stories of Jesus are "legend". Neither one of us have argued that Jesus didn't exist but, we disagree with the divinity claimed and don't see corroborating extant evidence to indicate any divinity happened.

unkleE said...

Hendy: yes I agree, we can continue more effectively by email. Just a couple of brief points relevant to this blog post ....

1. This discussion started because John said: "there are plausible natural explanations for every piece of evidence a believer uses to defend her faith .... Resurrection of Jesus?...meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time."

The dictionary defines legend as "a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical".

I have tried to confine myself to rebutting John's hypothesis. I have done so by quoting and referencing the best historians and scholars, to the effect that the stories of the resurrection are not unverified, they were not handed down from earlier times but developed very soon after the event. The story may be mistaken, but it is not a legend. Of course I believe in the resurrection, but I haven't argued that.

2. I think you have started in the wrong place. Atheists tend to start with a hypothesis (the NT cannot be trusted) and then they gather the evidence for that hypothesis, and don't point out evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile christian apologists do the same - they start with the hypothesis that the NT is all true and gather their evidence, and their attempted rebuttals of unbelievers' evidence. Both approaches beg the question. You wouldn't accept the second approach, so why accept the first? The only reasonable way to go is to gather all the evidence first, then test all the hypotheses against it. That is what I have been trying to do - summarise the conclusions of neutral experts, from which all hypotheses can be tested. I'll do that by email.

3. I think there is a clear difference between accurate, reliable and truthful on the one hand and without error on the other. I would call myself accurate and truthful, and I'm sure you are the same, but neither of us would claim to be without error. Newspapers can be the same. And perhaps the Bible is the same, perhaps not. But I don't think any of your discussion proves the Bible claims inerrancy, only reliability and truthfulness. Thus a person can believe reliability on historical grounds, but believing inerrancy must be a matter of faith. The other question is, could God reveal himself through something that isn't totally without error? I don't see why not, but let's discuss that.

Best wishes.

Unknown said...

@ColeI believe there was a First Cause. But it can't be proven.
I’m not saying that it can be proven (what outside of mathematics can be proven with 100% certainty?) All I’m arguing is that a stronger case can be made for a theistic worldview than an atheistic worldview. The title of John’s blog post, which you claim to agree with, is ‘where’s the evidence’. I think there’s plenty of evidence even if that evidence doesn't amount to a proof.

How can there even be motion without time? If something is timeless it doesn't change
God is traditionally described as being changeless, for example Malachi 3:6 states: "I the LORD do not change." When God does something, everything else changes whilst God remains the same. When God created the universe we went from God with nothing to God with something.

Because we are held up in a time bound universe the idea of a timeless being is difficult for us to comprehend however that in itself proves nothing. Quantum mechanics is difficult for us to comprehend however that doesn’t make it illogical.

In our experience, causes always bear a temporal relation to their effects. They are either temporally prior to, or perhaps simultaneous with, their effects.
If a cause can occur simultaneously with its effect then it is not true that the cause must occur prior to its effect. If a cause does not need to occur prior to its effect then it does not need to exist in a temporal relation with its effect. If it does not need to exist in a temporal relationship then time is not needed for a cause. Therefore, by acknowledging that causes and effects can occur simultaneously, you’re contradicting your claim that they must be temporal.

Even if one grants (as many philosophers do not)
I don’t think your argument involving time has the widespread support from philosophers and scientists that you make out. For example, when you listen to debates or read books on the existence of God you rarely find the atheist brings it up as an objection.

Also, the mysteries of how time works is something which the atheist needs to face as well. I could rephrase your argument:
1.In order for a second to tick by, a previous moment in time must have existed for us to have moved on from. We have no experience of a state of no time going to a state of time.
2.On the other hand, the view of an infinite timeline also makes no sense.
2.Therefore any view of the universe will raise some interesting questions in this area. This is no more an argument against theism than it is against atheism.

The pressure is due to the position and posture of the man's body, and this in turn is a state of something - the man's body - that existed before it was in that state.
But the man’s body doesn’t exist in time as a result of causing the cushion to depress. If I took a photo of the man, I would have a timeless snapshot and yet the cause and effect would still be there for all to see.

Gravity is the curvature of space and time. It's not non-physical. Neither is the other example you gave.
Gravity is not made out of matter and therefore isn’t physical in the sense that we are physical beings.

One all-knowing, all-powerful, gracious God is simpler that three of them as the trinity teaches and is therefore the best explanation.
I’m not sure what you’re understanding of the trinity is however the trinity doesn’t mean multiplicity in terms of Gods. Nonetheless, how are you measuring simplicity? By your logic a universe with one planet within would be a lot simpler than a universe with a multitude of planets and solar systems.

If all I had to go on was the kalam cosmological argument then it would be irrational for me to be a Christian. But of course, the kalam cosmological argument is one tiny piece of a much larger jigsaw.

Chuck said...

Uncle Dumb Ass,

Begging the question? No son, begging the question would be to assert the reurrection isn't legend because historians state that Jesus' disciples said it was real. You are simply restating your premise as your conclusion.

John said...

Michael,


There's some evidence for Theism and even less for Christian Theism. You still have to take into consideration however the arguments on the other side and weigh the probabilities. On the other side we have:


The anti-creation argument

The Transcendent-Personal Argument

The argument from the mind’s dependence on the brain

The argument from evil and suffering

The argument from nonbelief

The argument from confusion

The argument from divine hiddeness

The probabilities ballance themselves out. Unless you can show otherwise.

Gravity is physical. Look it up.

You also missed the point about simultanious causation. Even if there is such a thing the causes pre-exist their effects in time.

Scientists define time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. No time, No causality. If God is timeless He doesn't change. If God doesn't change He doesn't move. He therefore can't think or create.

Also, the arguments for God at best only lead to an eternal person. Occam's Razor says we shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity to explain the effect.

First Cause leads to an Eternal Personal Creator

Morality to a locus of moral value

Design to a Persoanl Designer

Laws of logic to an Eternal Mind


It's simpler to postulate One Eternal Person than three as in the Trinity.

Explanation 1 - One Eternal Person

Explanation 2 - Two Eternal Persons

Explanation 3 - Three Eternal Persons.

Explanation 4 - Four Eternal Persons.

Explanation 5 - Five Eternal Persons.

Occam's Razor shaves away five eternal persons down to One Eternal Person. One Eternal Person explains the evidence just fine. There's no need to postulate three of them. In fact Occam's Razor tells us we shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity. If One Eternal Person explains the data then there is no reason at all to postulate three of them.

It cannot be proven that God is three persons anyway. You would first have to prove the bible was God's word and then prove the bible teaches such a thing. Bare Theism should be accepted over Christian Theism.

John said...

Michael,

You believe Jesus is God. You also believe the Father is God. So, when Jesus prayed to the Father God was praying to Himself. God told Himself "Not my will but thy will be done." That doesn't make any sense.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: somehow you seem to combine the historicity of the stories with the event itself.

True (most likely): Jesus existed, had a band of followers, probably was crucified, and was reported to have appeared.

Legend: Jesus actually resurrected, did miracles, and was the son of god and messiah.

What's the issue? You are attempting to point out that the resurrection (or story of the resurrection) is not a legend because "the stories of the resurrection are not unverified, they were not handed down from earlier times but developed very soon after the event."

This makes no sense. Doesn't a story have to, in essence, survive to even be evaluated as legend or not? No one analyzes the historical existence of the story about the event, they analyze the historical validity (or non-legendness) of the content of the story.

I have not argued that the resurrection 'story' is a legend. It obviously exists as there are about 2.1 billion people repeating it and believing in it today. I argue that the resurrection itself is far better explained by what John said - a visionary experience among a superstitious people - than by a man actually rising from the dead.

John said...

Michael,

Christianity teaches One God in three persons.

Jesus is God

The Father is God

The Holy Spirit is God

One God in three persons

Jesus prayed to the Father

God therefore prayed to Himself saying "Not my will but thy will be done"

It makes no sense at all.

You must now get rid of Christian Theism.

John said...

Michael,

This isn't a mystery either. It makes no sense for God to go arround praying to Himself saying: "not my will, but thy will be done" referring to Himself. How can God tell Himself not my will be done rather let my will be done without being crazy? The Christian explanation for reality (The Trinity) makes no sense and should be rejected.

unkleE said...

Cole said: "Jesus prayed to the Father. God therefore prayed to Himself saying "Not my will but thy will be done""
No he prayed to a different person. As you yourself said: "One God in three persons" It is a paradox and it makes sense.

unkleE said...

Hendy said... "@uncle e: somehow you seem to combine the historicity of the stories with the event itself."

No, I am simply trying to establish the closest to historical facts we can get. Only then is it sensible to discuss interpretation or belief.

"I argue that the resurrection itself is far better explained by what John said - a visionary experience among a superstitious people - than by a man actually rising from the dead."

And if I was arguing this matter (which I will by email, but here is too clumsy) I would argue otherwise. On the basis of the historical "facts".

"Doesn't a story have to, in essence, survive to even be evaluated as legend or not?"

Yes, but a legend grows in the telling and is mostly non factual (though there may be some small factual elements. But the historical evidence suggests this story didn't grow in the telling. It always was about a person rising and an empty tomb (facts, not legend, according to the historians) and an explanation (he rose, the disciples stole the body, etc). So not legendary, although the explanation was disputed.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

"Cole said: "Jesus prayed to the Father. God therefore prayed to Himself saying "Not my will but thy will be done""
No he prayed to a different person. As you yourself said: "One God in three persons" It is a paradox and it makes sense."

Nope.

God is One God. Not three God's

One God in three persons.

a)Jesus prayed to the Father

B)Jesus is God

C)The Father is God

D) God therefore prayed to God

E) God therefore prayed to Himself

F) God said to Himself "Not my will by thine be done.

It makes no sense at all.

John said...

I didn't say Jesus prayed to Himself. I said Jesus prayed to the Father and Jesus is God and the Father is God. There's only One God. God therefore prayed to God. God therefore prayed to Himself. It makes no sense. One Eternal Person makes more sense than three.

Chuck said...

It didn't grow? Re-read the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark and honestly say it didn't grow. Additionally, all the post resurrection commentary in Mark is agreed upon to be later additions which is evidence of its growth. Lastly, the primary evangelist carrying the truth of the ressurection got the echatology wrong. He believed Jesus was the proto-risen man ushering a new age on earth which would be imminent in his life. John later had to revise the meaning to consider the ressurection a sign of afterlife which, IS an alteration of the story. You will also have to take care and rationalize the theologies of Marcion, Aryus, and the Gnostics if you want to claim the Jesus story didn't grow and change within the first few centuries of believers. You are claiming hegemony where history shows none exists.

John said...

The conclusion to be drawn is that the One God of Christianity has two wills that are opposed to each other.

unkleE said...

Cole said: "The conclusion to be drawn is that the One God of Christianity has two wills that are opposed to each other."

There are other possible conclusions ....

1. That you don't fully understand God.
2. That you have not formulated the question accurately.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: How can we place hope in the idea that god is completely good? Where are we guaranteed of this?

It seems completely plausible to me that we have defined the idea of 'god' as x and simply interpret every shred of evidence encountered as having lined up with x.

In other words:
- Q: I don't understand why god is three and also one; why does he need to be three in the first place?
- A: we don't understand god completely

- Q: if god is good, why doesn't he answer my prayers convincingly?
- A: you don't understand what you need, god understand what you need

- Q: if god is good, why did he not answer my prayers this time but 'miraculously' answer my prayers last time?
- A: your prayers last time aligned with his will

- Q: why are religions so diverse according to geography?
- A: because god wants word of his 'true' form spread by foot, tortuously slow over time

To illustrate further:
- what is god like? He is all loving, all good, omnipotent, omniscient, existed in trinitarian form before all time, created the heavens and earth and all time from a position outside of space and time, wants us to be in relationship with him, sent his only beloved son Jesus to reveal himself to us by having him born of a virgin, had him wait 30 years to start his ministry, then brought him out of historical hiding to do miracles, raise a few people from the dead, and then reach the climax of his life by dying on a cross only to be raised, as he foretold, on the 3rd day. From there he physically appeared risen but still having wounds from his crucifixion, then ascended to heaven because he couldn't send his holy spirit (the 'spirited' third person created from the perfect love of the father and the son) without physically leaving earth first. Now the holy spirit gives us power to live on earth day by day.

This answer seems to be extremely specific, don't you think?

- Why does god allow evil, not reveal himself uniformly to all peoples, not answer prayers sometimes but answer them other times, refuse to respond to Christian universities who try to double-blind-test the power of prayer and prove him, not answer me in my significant doubting of my own faith, and on and on and on? Because you cannot possibly understand god; how dare you try!

This is a serious conundrum I run into with my own seeking right now. I am perplexed at how specifically Christians proclaim to know god's character yet when pushed on specifics they can answer nothing. Even pointing out the issue with evil when combined with omniscience and omnipotence I have heard responses like, 'Well you can't even being to comprehend omniscience and omnipotence and how they are used by a being outside of this dimension and time.' Yeah... right. So why even call god these qualities in the first place?

Unknown said...

@Cole: I notice that rather than responding to anything I’ve written, you simply list the names of a load of arguments and change the subject over to the trinity. It does make me wonder why you are reluctant to discuss any one argument in depth.

There's some evidence for Theism and even less for Christian Theism.
I beg to differ and think there’s enough evidence to make Christian belief amply justifiable.

You still have to take into consideration however the arguments on the other side and weigh the probabilities
I have read plenty of books by atheists, including John Loftus’ book, and have given much time to considering the arguments atheists put forward. You could take any proposition and draw up a list of arguments for and against it - therefore this proves nothing. All you’re trying to do is bombard me with so many arguments that it becomes impossible to properly respond to them all. I’m more interested in the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity, nonetheless I’ll offer a quick response to each one:

The anti-creation argument
Falsely assumes that time is needed in order for something to be created. I have already responded to this.

The Transcendent-Personal Argument
Just like the previous argument, misunderstands how time works and how God interacts with it. The atheist cannot say that’s what true for us must be true for God.

The argument from the mind’s dependence on the brain
Scientists don’t yet know what the relationship between consciousness and the brain is; therefore this argument is based upon an unproven assumption. I could also turn the argument around: electricity flows in a mathematically predictable manor, as do chemical reactions. If you're right, then somebody committing murder is no different than a computer displaying an error code. If you're right then we’re not dialoguing – my brain is fizzing away whilst your brain fizzes away and the two sometimes exchange data. This gives theism an argument...the argument from the mind’s distinctiveness from the brain.

The argument from evil and suffering
If atheism is true, then the fact we evolved to believe that killing babies is wrong is just as arbitrary as the fact we evolved five fingers instead of six. Therefore if atheism is true, evil and suffering is simply an illusion. Your argument presupposes that evil exists and therefore atheism is not true.

From a Christian perspective, it would be argued that God is all loving, God is all powerful and therefore God must have morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering. The atheist would need to demonstrate that God doesn’t have good grounds for permitting suffering. I don’t know the motivation behind everything you do because I’m not you. Similarly, the atheist cannot know the reason behind everything God does because they’re not God. Hence, the atheist cannot know that God doesn’t have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering. On top of that, theists have provided numerous theodicies offering reasons why God might permit it.

Unknown said...

The argument from nonbelief
Is the theory of evolution undermined simply because not everyone is convinced by it? Simply pointing out that some people disagree with an idea proves nothing. Also, the theist can mirror this by giving the argument from belief and religious experience.

The argument from confusion
Michael Shermer, president of the Sceptics Society and an atheist, says that irrational people: “mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field.” Just because theists dispute certain aspects of theology doesn’t mean that we should doubt the existence of God.

The argument from divine hiddeness
All this proves that God isn’t some dictator who forces people to believe in him. Is God being unreasonable in not proving enough evidence or are the atheists being unreasonable by not accepting all the evidence God has provided?

You also missed the point about simultanious causation. Even if there is such a thing the causes pre-exist their effects in time.
I didn’t miss it and fully answered your point, if you didn’t find my response to your argument satisfactory then let me know why.

Scientists define time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place.
Which scientists? Do you mean all scientists? Do you mean all atheist scientists? Do you mean some scientists?

Occam's Razor says we shouldn't multiply causes beyond necessity to explain the effect.
Which is simpler? To believe that a book has one author or a book has ten authors? Does that mean I should ignore the website for the Christian Delusion when it states that it will be written by ten authors?

It cannot be proven that God is three persons anyway.
So which books on the trinity have you read? Or do you simply mean that you’re ignorant of the arguments Christians put forth for the trinity?

You believe Jesus is God. You also believe the Father is God. So, when Jesus prayed to the Father God was praying to Himself.
I believe that God has three distinct centres of consciousness which play distinct roles. I also believe that that Jesus had a human nature in addition to his divine nature (i.e. Jesus was God incarnate). Where's your problem? When you have a thought or try thinking about something doesn’t one part of you talk to another part of you?

You’ve probably come across the god of the gaps approach and heard atheists quite rightly criticise Christians for using it. Just because the atheist cannot fully explain something doesn’t prove anything, i.e. we can’t just leap upon gaps in our knowledge. What you’re doing is an atheism of the gaps, that is you’re fishing around for a gap in the theist’s knowledge (be it questions over how time works or a complete understanding of the trinity) and using it as an argument.

John said...

Michael,

I was referring to Christian scientists when I gave you that definition. Ever heard of the Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross? He clearly states in his books that time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. It just stands to reason that the laws that govern our universe don't apply outside the universe. Those Laws aren't there. That would include the law of causality. Moreover, If something is timeless it doesn't change. It's frozen. If God is outside time then He doesn't change. He's changeless and therefore He becomes frozen. He doesn't act or move and He therefore doesn't stand in causal relations with His creatures. Relationships with God become impossible without time.
So, maybe God is in some sort of metaphysical time or another dimension of time. But suppose the First Cause exists in some sort of metaphysical time or another dimension of time. But then the problem arises as to how could this Cause traverse an actually infinite number of equal, non-zero, past temporal intervals to arrive at the moment of creation? The God explanation seems to be unlikely.

Everything that comes into existence within our universe has a cause. That doesn't necessarily mean that the universe as a whole requires a cause. That may very well commit the fallacy of composition. We simply don't know.

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "@uncle e: How can we place hope in the idea that god is completely good? Where are we guaranteed of this?"

I don't think I ever said we were guaranteed anything in the sense you use it here. I believe it because Jesus said it and I believe him. And I believe him for a whole range of reasons. We need to start there.

"This answer seems to be extremely specific, don't you think?"

If the christian God exists, he is way beyond our comprehension. It is pretty standard christian belief that we can know a little about him by our own reasoning (e.g. by looking at the universe - this may include science and philosophy), but the only way to really know about him is through revelation.

So if I believe Jesus was the most accurate bearer of that revelation, then I can believe what he said. Which cover most things I believe about God. So again, we come back to the question of whether we can believe Jesus was the supreme revelation of God. All other questions, arguments, difficulties will be affected by how we conclude on that question.

"This is a serious conundrum I run into with my own seeking right now. I am perplexed at how specifically Christians proclaim to know god's character yet when pushed on specifics they can answer nothing."

So you see, it is quite simple. I can speculate on what I think about God, but I can answer with some assurance what he has revealed.

"Why does god allow evil, not reveal himself uniformly to all peoples, not answer prayers sometimes but answer them other times, refuse to respond to Christian universities who try to double-blind-test the power of prayer and prove him, not answer me in my significant doubting of my own faith, and on and on and on?"

Some of those questions are touched on in revelation, many are not. So I can only speculate on most. But I have my ideas (for what they're worth!).

I still think you are asking all the "little" questions without having satisfactorily answered the "big" questions, and I still think that is bad methodology.

Best wishes.

Chuck said...

Wow Uncle, your epistemology is the same as Osama Bin Laden's and the elders of Salem. How is a basis for truth in revelation that gave us things like 911 and the murder of teenage girls ever considered good? You are a smug bastard who can't see that his cultural superstitions are both common and destructive. I'm sure your Sunday school colleagues think your smart but history shows that revelation has proven a poor judge of truth.

John said...

Also Michael,

The First Cause is compatible with many different views of God as well as the other arguments for God's existence. You like the explanation of Three Eternal Persons. Why not Four Eternal Persons? Or maybe just One or Two?

You are going to have to show that the Bible is God's word and that it teaches a Trinity. Orthodox Jews don't believe in the Trinity.

Unknown said...

@Cole: Ever heard of the Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross?
Yes I have heard of him and you’re simply mistaken if you think he agrees with you. From a paper written by Hugh Ross:

The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and, most importantly, that God has the capacity to operate through cause and effect before the time dimension of our universe even exists.

Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. What the Apostle Paul is telling us in these two places and in the six other portions of Scripture, is that we are confined to a single dimension of time.

We're confined, and the entire universe is confined to half of the line of time. Therefore, the universe must be created and we must be created. But God is not so confined.

In other words, Hugh Ross does believe that a timeless cause created the universe and thus must believe that causes can occur independent of time.

If God is outside time then He doesn't change.
I’ve already addressed this one. God does not change in relation to himself.

That may very well commit the fallacy of composition. We simply don't know.
I have already responded to the claim the theism commits the fallacy of composition. Are you actually reading my posts?

that the Bible is God's word
The key question is this: who did Jesus claim to be and what did he say about the role of the Holy Spirit? This is a historical question and therefore all we need to do is look at the historical evidence for Jesus.

You are going to have to show that the Bible...Orthodox Jews don't believe in the Trinity.
Where do you think the belief about the trinity originated from? Do you think that the early church were bored and just made it up for a laugh?

John said...

Michael,

Dr. Ross believes that God is in more than one dimension of time. He doesn't believe He's imeless. But this raises a problem for him. How could this Cause traverse an actually infinite number of equal, non-zero, past temporal intervals to arrive at the moment of creation? The God explanation seems to be unlikely. As Dr. Ross says time is defined as that dimension in which cause and effect take place. This means that if there is no time then there's no Causality. This is why Dr. Ross believes the First Cause must exist in more than one dimension of time. When he says God is not confined to time he's speaking of our linear time dimension. Again, the Laws that govern our universe don't exist outside our universe. They're simply not there. It cannot be proven that there is a First Cause. Therefore, it cannot be proven that there is a God. A timeless Cause makes no sense.

John said...

Michael,

Dr. Ross states:

"Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. What the Apostle Paul is telling us in these two places and in the six other portions of Scripture, is that we are confined to a single dimension of time."


Dr. Ross believes that God is not confined to one dimension of time. He believes He is in more that one dimension of time. Notice how He defines time. Time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. If there's no time there's no Cause and effect. Since there's no time prior to the Big Bang there's no Cause. The only possible solution is that te First Cause is in more than one dimension of time. It's not confined to one dimension of time. But then this raises the problem I already mentioned.

jwhendy said...

@uncle e: this is getting frustrating.

My responses (your statements paraphrased in italics)

1) Re. 'god is way beyond our comprehension but we can know some things by reason and looking at the universe.' I think this is horrendously wrong. You have it backwards. We start with scripture as revealed truth and interpret the universe from there. How you could come to the conclusion that a perfectly good, all powerful and all knowing god both created a world and is pulling all of the strings in spite of the evil and pain we experience is beyond me. I do not think a rational examination of the world without a pre-conceived, taught, indoctrinated concept of god would lead one to the qualities of the trinity we propose.

2) Re. 'I can answer with some assurance with what he has revealed.' What gives any Christian in any sect the ability to 'answer with assurance' about anything revealed when Christian sects are in such obvious conflict about all kinds of 'revealed' truth? Or do you simply mean things like 'I am the way, the truth and the life?' In any case, I still don't find this satisfying. I still think it's a legitimate issue that we attribute crazy qualities to god and cannot come up with any plausible explanation for something like the problem of evil and natural disasters and inconsistent answers to prayer other than 'god's ways are above our ways'.

3) Re. 'big vs. little questions and bad methodology. Are you serious? If I made a claim that an all evil god ruled the universe but he was going to remain completely hidden forever but he is pure evil and strikes only the evil with plagues and natural disasters... would you limit yourself only to the 'big questions' (philosophical, etc.) or would you consider, 'Hmm... if this claim were true, what would I see in the world' (aka 'little questions)? For, I think I have gone about this in an even better approach than you suggest, for:

3a) I have granted god hypothetical omnipotence and omniscience and puzzled at how that leaves me with free will? For I cannot possibly 'surprise' god with my actions...

3b) I have granted god hypothetical benevolence and still not been able to understand how he could allow evil. In addition, with 3a and 3b... I cannot understand how he created the world as he did. He would have had to know about the fall and, indeed, actually intended it if he were all knowing and all powerful.

3c) I have even granted that Jesus is who he said and that he is the best example of god's revealed truth. Then I have considered his words and found them not to be what I experience, for:
--- People of faith have asked many things in his name and not received them
--- Those who were alive when he was have surely 'tasted death' before seeing the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom (Mt. 16:28)
--- I can provide probably 10 examples of Jesus doing works so that we would believe and when doubters today look for miraculous signs to believe... we do not receive them

To conclude, I see no issue with using the 'small questions' to assess the truth of the 'big question.' How would you assess the truth of (k*q1*q2/d^2), the electrostatic force equation? Would you begin philosophically or with a 'big picture' approach, assessing the historicity or reliability of Coulomb? Or could you perhaps find examples of some charged objects and measurement equipment to examine the 'small questions' of what you would expect should this equation be true?

I find it perfectly reasonable to assess the small questions, for if none of them seem to hold up I would ask why the hypothesizer of the 'big answer' is so sure of his answer when he can neither defend the 'big answer' empirically (resting instead on a 2000 year old book and 'revelation') nor can he provide an explanation for why I can't find answers to the 'small questions' that result from the 'big answer.'

John said...

Michael,

Even if the Cause is simultaneous with the comming into existence of the universe the Cause would have to be in time. Simultaneous means to happen at the same time.

X -In our experience, causes always bear a temporal relation to their effects. They are either temporally prior to, or perhaps simultaneous with, their effects.

The conclusion of X is constantly confirmed and never falsified by emperical observation.

Dr. Ross:

"Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. "

No time no Causality.

T=0 at the Big Bang Singularity.

Therefore there's no Cause.

Therefore there's no God.

You can believe like Dr. Ross if you want to that the Cause is in another dimension of time but it then becomes impossible for the Cause to traverse an actually infinite number of equal, non-zero, past temporal intervals to arrive at the moment of creation.

John said...

Michael,

Here's a quote from Dr. Ross in the paper you provided:

"My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time. In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want.

It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that's infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar?"


Hugh Ross does not believe that the First Cause was or can be timeless. He believes He operates in more that one dimension of time. But then it becomes impossible for the Cause to traverse an actually infinite number of equal, non-zero, past temporal intervals to arrive at the moment of creation.

unkleE said...

Hendy said: "@uncle e: this is getting frustrating."
I'm sorry, but it seems to be almost inevitable in this sort of discussion, when we are dealing with big questions with brief comments. Should we call it a day?

Since we may be approaching the end, I'll try to set out where I see the main problems.

1. When answering questions you or others ask, I find there are two different situations:

(i) when asked why I believe in the christian God I give answers based not on treating the Bible as revelation, but on the Bible as history and natural theology, because I cannot presume the Bible is revelation, but

(ii) when asked what I believe about the christian God I answer from revelation, because in my mind I have established that as a reasonable belief in (i).

I think you sometimes don't see the distinction and get frustrated. That is why I would prefer to concentrate on (i) until we have thoroughly discussed it.

2. I have continually stressed the difference between "big" and fundamental questions and smaller or secondary questions. Now I agree with you that the problem of evil is a major issue, not a "small" question - but even then it cannot logically be the first and only question we ask. Before we can have any statement of the problem of evil, we must have a universe, an ethical standard to judge things are evil, and a human race to experience the evil. Those three things are the subjects of theistic arguments, so any statement of the problem of evil must first address those arguments. An example:

Suppose there were only two arguments, the Cosmological and evil, and we judged the first to be successful in establishing the probability of God and the second to be successful in establishing the improbability of a good God. It would be wrong to just use the second one to argue no God exists and thus ignore the first - a truly logical approach would consider both and possibly conclude that God exists but is indifferent to us. Of course there are other arguments, so I don't draw that conclusion, and neither do many other christians or atheists.

So just considering one side of the question is unbalanced and will prejudge the question.

3. But many other anti-God arguments are less important than the problem of evil, and they logically ought to be given lesser weight. An answer to a fundamental question provides more explanatory power than an answer to a secondary question. Thus if (as I believe) christian theism answers the big questions of the universe, humanity, ethics, religious experience and Jesus better than atheism does, then it has greater explanatory power even if it cannot answer some relatively arcane question like "How can God cause something if he is timeless?"

4. I don't believe God's existence can be proved or disproved. And I believe there is good evidence and arguments for the existence of God and good evidence and arguments against it. But my judgment is that the arguments for are far stronger and address far more fundamental questions than the arguments against, so I believe, despite not having all the answers. Any other course would be contrary to the evidence as I see it. But I still have problems and difficulties.

So I hope my explanation of how I see these basic principles helps you understand why my responses are as they have been, and how I would respond to your latest questions if I had space.

Best wishes

Chuck said...

1. A devout Muslim would say the same to you about the veracity of their faith, which you would dismiss as I dismiss yours.
2. A nice example of the black and white fallacy
3. Based on your "revelation" as you explained
4. IBID

If 8alvinist Christians were to take their faith and practice in private I would be fine with that but, they don't and history shows their appeal to authority based on agreed superstition has fueled actions which have impeded progress and liberty.

John said...

"even if it cannot answer some relatively arcane question like "How can God cause something if he is timeless?"


Unkle e,

The question is important because it shows there is no God. Scientists define time as that dimension in which cause and effect take place. This means if there is no time there's no causality. If something is timeless it becomes static and unchanging. It then becomes impossible for it to create, act , or think.

a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y

b) But nothing could exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction)

c) It is impossible for time to have been created

d) Time is an essential component to the universe

e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created

f) It follows that God does not exist.

There is no time at the Big Bang singularity and therefore there's no Causality. Since there's no Cause there's no God.

The argument is air-tight and ironclad.

Unknown said...

@Cole:Dr. Ross believes that God is in more than one dimension of time.
But he makes it very clear that whatever dimension God is in, it is not identical to time within the universe.

As Dr. Ross says time is defined as that dimension in which cause and effect take place.
A football stadium is a place where football takes place, so does that mean a stadium is required in order to play football? Of course not. Similarly, just because time is where cause and effect take place does not mean cause and effect cannot occur outside of time. Hugh Ross also says in the article: “The Bible states that God creates independent of time.” All you’re doing is trying to twist his words in an attempt to make him say something he isn't.

Again, the Laws that govern our universe don't exist outside our universe. They're simply not there.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If the laws of our universe don’t apply to whatever created it then why were you previously trying to use Occam’s razor on something which you claim the laws of logic don’t apply to? Doesn’t your time argument commit the fallacy of composition which you were banging the drum for earlier? The sceptic cannot expect the Christian to answer all their questions whilst ignoring all the problems with their beliefs.

It cannot be proven that there is a First Cause. Therefore, it cannot be proven that there is a God.
I never said it can be conclusively proven – where does this assumption come from that the theist has to offer some kind of conclusive proof that even the most reluctant atheist will accept?

Let’s look at what we’ve got:
1.Physists state that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang model contradicts this. Problem for both atheists and theists
2.The big bang is an event. Events occur in time. Problem for theist and atheist.
3. If we start with nothing, then why didn’t it stay as nothing? Why did time just start for no reason? Only a problem for the atheist.
4. Why did the universe carry on expanding rather than imploding in on itself? Why were the conditions just right for a universe to form even when the odds are stacked against this? Problem for atheist.
5. Where did the rules/algorithms/laws which determined how the big bang should unfold come from? Problem for atheist.

Therefore theism has fewer problems and hence makes more sense of the data. Therefore it is less rational to be an atheist than to be a theist.

But then this raises the problem I already mentioned.
I have responded to all the ‘problems’ which you’ve raised. You, on the other hand, have completely ignored most of my posts.

Even if the Cause is simultaneous with the comming into existence of the universe the Cause would have to be in time. Simultaneous means to happen at the same time.
What causes a chandelier to suspend in mid-air? Well the rope that’s attaching it to the ceiling. But here’s the import part: the chandelier doesn’t exist in time because a rope is causing it to suspend in mid-air. The chandelier would exit in time with or without the rope. In other words, everything within the universe exists in time but this has absolutely nothing to do with cause and effect relationships.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Michael,

The cause and effect principle is based on inference from empirical observation.

Since all empirical observation is within time that means that the cause and effect general causal principle is only applicable within time as well.

Causes cannot exist outside of time, therefore time cannot have a cause. Even simultaneous causes are temporally in line with the effects, and in the case of simultaneous causes/effect, the cause still must have preceded the effect.

John said...

Again if something is outside space and time it becomes unchanging and frozen. It therefore cannot create, act, or think.

a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y

b) But nothing could exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction)

c) It is impossible for time to have been created

d) Time is an essential component to the universe

e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created

f) It follows that God does not exist.

There is no time at the Big Bang singularity and therefore there's no Causality. Since there's no Cause there's no God.

The argument is air-tight and ironclad.

John said...

You now must become an atheist.

Unknown said...

I've already responded to that argument, just repeating yourself gets us nowhere. To stop us going around in circles, please answer this question: do the laws of logic and science apply to the big bang theory and whatever is beyond the universe?

-If your answer is “yes” then the scientific and logical rule that things happen for a reason must surely apply to the big bang.

-If your answer is “no” then your time argument is invalid. I can just say, “hey, all our observations of cause and effect occur within the universe. Therefore your rule that the cause must precede the effect is only applicable within the universe and there is no empirical observation which says this has to be true outside of the universe .” Moreover, you aren’t allowed to raise arguments about God and the trinity etc because you can’t use logical arguments against something which is beyond the laws of logic.

What you’re suggesting at the moment is that the rules of cause and effect apply to the theist’s explanation of where the universe came from but mysteriously the same rules don’t apply to the atheist.

So no, I’m not going to become an atheist.

John said...

Michael,

How about this one:

If the God of the Bible was morally perfect then He wouldn't bless people for bashing infants brains out against rocks.

But it does occur in the Bible that God blesses people for bashing infants brains out against rocks. (Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalms 137:9)

Therefore, the God of the Bible isn't morally perfect.

We must now drop the morally imperfect God of the Bible in favor of the morally perfect God of creation.

Unknown said...

Cole, rather than trying to change the subject, why don't you answer my question...

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Also Michael,

The true God is a just God. He doesn't command people to be punished with a punishment that is cruel and unusual. In the Bible we see God commanding barbaric, cruel, and unusual punishments. He commanded that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath Day to be stoned to death. (Num. 15:32-36)

1) If the God of the Bible was the true God then He would be just

2) The God of the Bible isn't just

3) Therefore, the God of the Bible isn't the true God.

John said...

Michael,

I'm going to have to scratch my argument from time. There's too much disagreement on time and eternity for me to draw a firm conclusion about causality. I think an Eternal Creator is the best available explanation that we finite creatures have come up with so far. It's still not the God of the Bible though. What do you think of the other argument.

Chuck said...

It's interesting to observe Cole and Michael argue. It's like watching two people volley with an invisible tennis ball.

John said...

Michael,

Here's another cruel and unusual punishment done by the God of the Bible:

2 Kings 2:23-24

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

Unknown said...

This first thing to note is that all this does is bring into question the doctrine of inerrancy; it does not follow that Jesus didn’t die for your sins simply because you think there are errors in the Bible. In other words, this argument is against evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism rather than the core statements of belief agreed upon by all Christians.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible where God forgives, talks of love and is very just. For example, King David committed adultery (a crime that the law said deserves death) and yet God forgave him and didn’t punish him. There are many other examples I could give. So the passages you cite are the exception rather than the rule. So the real question is this: why does God act apparently out of character in a handful of verses?

When we only have a few verses to go on, we end up having to make a lot of assumptions. It would be unfair for me to judge your character based upon some passing remark which you made, yet this is what you’re doing to God. For example:

1.What’s the historical context? A Second World War pilot who kills a baby during a bombing raid is completely different to the psychopath which goes around killing babies for fun.
2.What else happened? Did the person gathering sticks get an opportunity to repent? Was this the first time they’d disobeyed God’s law? Was the person polite and patient or swearing at Moses and being deliberately rebellious? Were they encouraging others to disobey the law?
3.What would have happened had things occurred differently? Would the babies have grown up to form the Nazi party of their day? Would the person gathering sticks have caused a rebellion, leading to anarchy and far more deaths? We don’t know.

Just as I would if my best friend said something which at face value goes against their character, should we not give God the benefit of the doubt?

There are, however, a number of mistakes you’ve made in understanding the passages:
If the God of the Bible was morally perfect then He wouldn't bless people for bashing infants brains out against rocks.
Verse 8 tells us that Edomites had killed all of their babies first. Verse 7 tells us that the Edomites had destroyed Jerusalem. When read in context, nobody is rejoicing that babies were killed but instead happy that their enemies had been wiped from the map. Because even the babies were killed the Edomites were no more, thus the psalmist didn’t have to fear for his life. When the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing a lot of innocent people and children, many rejoiced because it ended a war. It is a similar situation with psalm 137.

2 Kings 2:23-24
I would encourage you to get a more modern and accurate translation than the King James, try something like the NIV. The Hebrew is better translated as there being 42 young men or youths. This could have easily been a gang who went around robbing people. Now image that you’re walking along when 42 aggressive looking youths surround you. One of the shouts, “come here mate” in a tone of voice which implies they want to mug you. I suspect you’d be fearing your life!

Next, note that the bears don’t kill anyone. They simply mauled and scattered the crowd. So here we have somebody being threaded by a gang of youths. God scatters the crowd, causing nobody to get killed, and in doing so almost certainly saves Elisha’s life. How is that unjust?

John said...

"This first thing to note is that all this does is bring into question the doctrine of inerrancy; it does not follow that Jesus didn’t die for your sins simply because you think there are errors in the Bible"

If it shows that there are errors in the Bible then the Bible can't be trusted. In fact there's no reason for a blood sacrifice in order for me to be forgiven for my sins. My God doesn't require blood in order to forgive me. Not from animals or His only Son. When I mess up I just pray and ask for forgiveness and my God forgives me. Blood is unecessary and it doesn't make any sense.

Bashing babies against rocks is wrong period. I don't care what their parents may have done. That's not justice. Neither is it justice to stone someone to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The punishemnt doen't fit the crime. It's cruel and unusual. Just as the bloody torture and death of Jesus was. I've never done anything to deserve that kind of punishment.

The passage does say blessed shall be the one who dashes your infants against the rocks.

(Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalms 137:9)

The God of the Bible is barbaric. How can you not see that? How can you try and justify bashing infants against rocks?


The version I'm using is the ESV.

John said...

Michael,

Here's another cruel and unusual punishment:


Leviticus 26:28-30 (New International Version)


28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.

PrisonerOfChrist4Life said...

No evidence is needed!

God has already revealed himself through His creation and our consciences.

And people who deny His existence know deep in their hearts He exists.

They deny He exists because they don't want Him in their lives or as Richard Dawkins says don't Him to interfere with their sexual mores.

Is that simple!

Chuck said...

Hey prisoner (seems like an appropriate handle)

I am a happily married man and soon to be father who is monogamous.

I became an atheist because I value truth that is useful to more than my own sense of comfort.

How about you? Why do you believe?

jwhendy said...

@Prisoner:

No evidence is needed, huh? So, without the Bible (evidence), you would have evolved Christianity from 'deep in your heart' simply through creation and your conscience?

I can tell you as a very recent believer that I would just about die for convincing evidence in favor of Christianity but have yet to find any. Since that is the case, it is somewhat as you say: those who believe do; those who don't... don't.

However: don't start for one second to pin your moral conjectures on those who have sought for valid reasons and found none. If there is one thing I've learned it's that evidence is far from conclusive and I have actually have developed far more respect for other religions exactly for that reason. We're all more or less clueless and interpret the evidence in unpredictable ways.

Here's how you can convince me. I seem to have lost my ability to have a personal relationship with the Creator. You have one. Use your relationship to ask Jesus how he began the earth. Ask specifically how life began on the earth and ask for specifics:
- get the elements and molecules present in whatever was there (the primordial soup for example)
- ask for the temperature and humidity as well as for the major components in the air at that time
- ask for any other circumstances that were present... perhaps lightning, a solar event, etc.
- ask what molecule chains were first produced and which led to the very first functioning organisms or precursors to organisms

Write all of this up and send it to any local university where you can find a practicing biologist doing research in evolutionary science. Better yet, send it to a bunch of different universities.

When they succeed in solving the missing puzzle because you've revealed how God started everything rolling... I'll believe!

Unknown said...

if it shows that there are errors in the Bible then the Bible can't be trusted.
Suppose I found an error in something you said, would that mean everything you write is untrustworthy? Of course not! In other words, historians don’t require a source to be infallible in order to consider it reliable. In order to determine whether Christianity is true we must ask ourselves this: did what Christians believe about the life, teachings and actions of Jesus change beyond recognition in the few decades between Jesus being alive and our earliest New Testament writings? Does the core message of the New Testament have no foot in reality when the disciples and other eyewitnesses were key leader in the church and able to correct misunderstandings within the first generation? If only half the Bible is true then we should be Christians and I don't see how you can say the Bible is that untrustworthy.

So far you only have an argument against the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

When I mess up I just pray and ask for forgiveness and my God forgives me.
If forgiveness is that easy, then what value does it have?

Bashing babies against rocks is wrong period.
If you’ve already made up your mind and aren’t really interested in what the text actually says then is there any point in having this discussion?

I've never done anything to deserve that kind of punishment.
That’s not a logical objection, but just a burst of emotional outrage. Sometimes serial killers will stand up in court and say that they’ve done nothing wrong and don't deserve to go to prision, however that says nothing. How often does someone stand up in court and say, “that’s a fair cop, my punishment is fair.” In other words, the guilty person is never normally in the best position to judge the seriousness of their crime. So your opinion that you’ve done nothing that wrong is simply meaningless.

The passage does say blessed shall be the one who dashes your infants against the rocks.
Look it up in some other translations (e.g niv, rsv) How do you know that your translation is the best one? If different Hebrew scholars translate it different ways then is it sensible to base your view of God on the conviction that the ESV is closest to the original Hebrew?

The God of the Bible is barbaric. How can you not see that? How can you try and justify bashing infants against rocks?
Surely your view of God should be based on the Bible as a whole. How can you say God is barbaric when he says the following:

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

Chuck said...

Hendy,

You are awesome.

Chuck said...

Micahel,

First, you can't compare human fallible writing with what believers to be a "spirit-breathed" book and rest on that comparison for why the bible can be mistaken yet still be true.

Also, you may have disproved Cole's assertion that the biblical god is barbaric but, you've only affirmed that he is bi-polar and passive-aggressive.

You can't cherry pick the nice stuff without addressing the passages Cole proposes.

jwhendy said...

@Michael:

Re. being in a position to judge one's punishments...

Have a read HERE. How can I possibly do anything in my finite life and finite power and finite impact (i.e. ability to inflict suffering) that could justify infinite suffering over an infinite period of time? There's just no way to even philosophically create a crime worth of that.

Oh... I bet you'll tell me that all fall short of the glory of god or that since god is perfect good, then turning away from him is an infinte sin? And that only Jesus could make man's infinite wrong doing right again by offering an infinitely good sacrifice? But I can only receive it or partake in it finitely...

All this talk of finite vs. infinite just begs the question: How in the world did anyone figure this all out in the first place?

I brought this up with uncle e and was not all that satisfied with the answer. On one hand:

Unknowns:
- Why god changes his darn mind so much in the old testament so that on the one hand (Lev) you should love others but on the other hand if two men are fighting and a woman comes to the aid of her husband by assaulting the genitals of her husband's attacker, you should cut off her hand. I don't care if we're not in a position to judge our own crimes... no one could possibly think that's just for anyone.
- Why the Bible is imperfectly written when it should be the inspired words of god. Why he 'couldn't do better' that is.
- Why god allows evil (after one refutes the divine justice, evil = only way to make humans turn to god, and other poor excuses)
- On and on and on... literally there area ton of questions to which, when in debate, a theist will offer the answer 'we cannot know god's mind'

On the other hand:
Knowns
- Jesus' sacrifice was infinitely good, reconciles my supposedly infinite sins that needed to be forgiven even though I can only accept the sacrifice with finite motives and that this washes me white in the blood of a supernatural lamb...
- God has perfectly good explanations for evil and suffering even though we don't know them... but we know he does... just wait till you die and you'll find out
- Differences between different types of grace
- Ranks of angels in heaven (maybe just Catholics, of which I am/was one)
- Who is a saint (again, Catholic)
- That while all Christian churches disagree, they're all eligible for heaven
- That even though other faiths completely deny Jesus as god's son and the messiah... they have a chance, too... but atheists who live a good life but don't bend the knee probably go to hell.

Really, now... who creates all this doctrine? I find it more and more frustrating on how 'theology' almost becomes like an invisible science. Someone comes up with this stuff after thinking about it all day and all night (Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine) and it sounds awesome to someone and it becomes part of the official teachings. Where has any of this stuff been specifically revealed through scripture? If it has, why don't all Christians agree on it?

When will god reveal truth that is actually pertinent to life rather than something I can either believe just because I should believe or deny because I think it's too far fetched. These seem to be my options. Why can't the author of all scientific laws reveal to us one formula or prediction to be verified?

I utterly reject the concept that he can't because then I would be an automaton. Give me one biblical example where Jesus did something to prevent them from believing too easily. I say 'did' because I've only found references to things like, 'Oh, this generation will only believe if they have a sign' and then does the miracle anyway... or 'It is better to have not seen and to believe' and then lets someone poke a finger through his hand anyway. Dig it?

Unknown said...

@Chuck O'ConnorFirst, you can't compare human fallible writing with what believers to be a "spirit-breathed" book and rest on that comparison for why the bible can be mistaken yet still be true.
What you’re doing is creating a false dichotomy between the Bible being God’s word and the Bible being completely unreliable. What I’m suggesting is that there’s a scale – starting with the Bible being complete myth, going through different levels of reliablity as a historical source and ending up at Biblical inerrancy at the other extreme. I would argue that the default position for anything is the middle – you don’t go around accusing the authors of a text of being compulsive liars without any evidence nor do you automatically believe everything they say. Studying the text will then shift our opinion of it one way or the other along the scale. The most important question, therefore, is over whether the Bible is trustworthy enough to justify the core beliefs of Christianity.

Also, you may have disproved Cole's assertion that the biblical god is barbaric but, you've only affirmed that he is bi-polar and passive-aggressive.
When I read the Bible, I find that these difficulties are far fewer than the verses which jump out at me as being full of wisdom and ahead of their time. When you get people who compile lists difficult verses I wonder what their motive is – just as I would if somebody had clearly gone to a lot of effort to dig up as much dirt as they can against one of my best friends.

You can't cherry pick the nice stuff without addressing the passages Cole proposes.
I’ve addressed the first set of passages Cole gave. I can’t see any point in Cole just providing difficulties and me just responding – if you want to find out a Christian response to each one then buy yourself an encyclopaedia of Biblical difficulties and good commentary. If you want a discussion then be more constructive in explaining why you don’t like my reply to the first set which was given.

Unknown said...

@Hendy:There's just no way to even philosophically create a crime worth of that.
Where does the Bible say that it’s a mathematically infinite punishment? The Bible says that God’s punishment is in proportion to their sin (Matthew 11:21-24) Nor are we told that it’s for an infinite amount of time, rather there is no hint that it will automatically come to an end. As long as people keep sinning, they'll keep on being punished, just as a prisoner would if they kept committing crimes whilst in prison.

How in the world did anyone figure this all out in the first place?
How do we know that anything is true? You could take any philosophical issue and ask how we know we're right. We have the core things that we know (things we observe, things we experience, things revealed to us by others) We also have the things we don’t know (things we’re ignorant of, things that are areas of research, things we don’t even realise we don’t know) Then we must ask ourselves which theory explains those two lists of things the best.

If it has, why don't all Christians agree on it?
If science is based on the testable world around us, how come scientists disagree with each other on so many things? Any subject area will have the areas agreed upon by everyone and the areas of dispute, why should Christianity be any different? If the Bible is unclear on something that that’s probably because it isn’t a particularly important issue.

CS Lewis puts it like this:

It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of - all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain - and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing a table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not -and the modern world usually is not - if you want to go on and ask what is really happening - then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple. (Mere Christianity)

Give me one biblical example where Jesus did something to prevent them from believing too easily.
Luke:9-11 says:
His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.

Chuck said...

Michael,

You said,

"The most important question, therefore, is over whether the Bible is trustworthy enough to justify the core beliefs of Christianity."

This is the logical fallacy known as "Begging the question"

It seems we need to define "trustworthiness" first before we allow the conclusion to define the premise.

Something "trust-worthy" would be reflective of the best information available.

As such, I think the bible is a mish-mash of ancient myth and ancient commentary on ancient myth. It is the product of men and is pre-scientific therefore its ethics are deficient and not universally applicable due to a lack of proper information about the world.

That said, it is not "trust-worhty" at all because it is limited in its truth and reality.

My conclusion is that the bible is limited in its truth and reality and anything based on it (e.g. Christianity) should be seen as questionable in its ability to understand truth and reality.

Unknown said...

This is the logical fallacy known as "Begging the question"
The fallacy of 'begging the question' is committed when one of the argument's premises presupposes the very thing which the argument is trying to prove. My premise (partially trustworthy sources of information exist) does not presuppose the conclusion (therefore you're creating a false dichotomy) Hence, I did not commit this fallacy.

Something "trust-worthy" would be reflective of the best information available.
But then what counts as the best information available? Your definition leaves me open to making bad arguments such as the following:

1.John Loftus once told a lie involving setting up a fake blog
2.Therefore John Loftus is not the best source of information I could possibly ask for.
3.Therefore John Loftus is untrustworthy
3.Hence John’s claim that he was once a former preacher is an untrustworthy claim.

As such, I think the bible is a mish-mash of ancient myth and ancient commentary on ancient myth.
That’s just an assertion – where’s your evidence that the Bible is a mish-mash of myths? Clearly the authors didn’t think they were writing mythology (e.g opening of Luke’s gospel), nor would historians normally consider a collection of sources written under the conditions that the New Testament was to be legend. As the historian R.T France put is: "many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts as the Gospels, written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence"


What’s to stop you declaring any source which is inconvenient to you as untrustworthy?

Breckmin said...

Good stuff, Michael.

What "is" your position on biblical inerrancy or verbal
inspiration? Have you considered
invalibility subject to minor error or a more detailed position
involving the sovereignty of God like capides inspiration?