Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Hakurei Reimu]

Right. You are asserting this based on nothing more than your own opinion.

Oh, the irony!

I not only know how to read but I can spell, too. And I categorically deny saying that the issue was about whether the Romans EVER conducted a census. The issue is about HOW they conducted them, and all of the evidence suggests that Luke was more familiar with the particulars of the Roman government than you are.

Bullshit. All you have presented are red herrings. Your own citation says nothing about people returning to their "ancestoral homes."

Luke is conservatively dated around AD 80. Which is only 50 years after Jesus' resurrection. Not 80.

80 years after the so-called census, muppet. What was that about knowing how to read? Knowing how to read is more than just seeing the words and knowing what they mean. It's being able to put them into context.

Moreover, Luke's gospel is chock-full of very precise names, titles, dates, cities and so forth. All of which have been verified archaeologically...so there is NO DOUBT that Luke got each "point of administration" correct.

You mean Nazareth that didn't exist in the first century?
You mean the red herring you presented talking about oranges when you were talking about apples?
You mean how Luke describes a census that couldn't possibly happen?
Because the Roman empire is plenty big enough that some surviving records of your imaginary census must surely exist.

Man, you're like 0 for 4 at this point.

Is this bible scoring? Because so far in the real world you are batting 0 to >50.

Not only are you unapologetically sticking stubbornly to your guns that have already been wrecked and destroyed, but you have repeatedly refused to provide the only evidence that matters: empirical evidence that the resurrection happened. Evidence that, by virtue of its existence, proves that the resurrection happened. A book of stories written by pre-scientific authors is not this kind of evidence. It's simply too weak to prove the resurrection.

Your god has been on the retreat ever since the Enlightenment. Science has taken huge chunks out of "God's domain," forcing the deity into smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, until god was left hiding under the small scattered rocks in the unknown. Cosmology, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. Heavenly motion, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. The creation of the earth, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. The creation and variety of life, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. And even man and the working of his body, once the domain of god, is now in the perview of science.

The resurrection seemed a likely explanation to the gospel writers because to the life was literally a kind of magic, something that is bestowed onto lifeless matter, and can be done so again after it has ceased. But now we know life is chemistry, and is not so easy to restart once it is stopped. The possibility is off the table, and any story that proposes such an idea must be fiction, or incorrect.

You, Randy, would put the gospel authors against the body of scientific knowledge. Against untold billions of individual pieces of data, detailed in millions of papers outlining about as many experiments, published to be scrutinized by the readership of hundreds of scientific journals, pored over by the best minds in their relevant fields to have ever lived, which constitutes the body of scientific knowledge. You would put that against a single book, written by a handful of superstitious authors, stuck in a culture that didn't even realize the earth is a sphere (a fact discovered by the Greeks centuries before)... and you would have it that your book would win.

Utter nonsense.

It is simply not reasonable to assume that the resurrection is true based on the recognisance of the gospel writers. We know far too much about the human body and the workings of life for that to be a live possibility. And appealing to your god won't help you. He's been on the retreat for the better part of four hundred years and had long abandoned that part of his domain.

Anyway, I think you've had a good run, but enough is enough.

[Hakurei Reimu]

For fuck's sake, who cares if there were a lot of catholic scientists? As long as they were following the scientific method in making their discoveries, they could worship a side of bacon for all I care.

As for proving the supernatural, you can certainly investigate to see if there's anything to the supernatural. But after hundreds of years of trying, nothing turned up.

[SGOS]

As for proving the supernatural, you can certainly investigate to see if there's anything to the supernatural. But after hundreds of years of trying, nothing turned up.

Kind of a bummer, isn't it?  Still no word on the existence of God.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.

Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy.  The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.

That proves the Iliad is true.

The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.

That proves they actually exist.

Find the flaw in that logic.

[Jason78]

Who Wrote the Gospels?
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?

Why does it matter?   The council of Nicea would have picked any text that fit.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.

Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy.  The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.

That proves the Iliad is true.

The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.

That proves they actually exist.

Find the flaw in that logic.

[marom1963]

Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.

Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy.  The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.

That proves the Iliad is true.

The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.

That proves they actually exist.

Find the flaw in that logic.

Randy must have taken a M D holiday. I'll step in for him: the logic is flawless. Right now, I'm setting up an altar to Zeus in the backyard. I'm going to the nearest farm to purchase a sheep to sacrifice.

[PickelledEggs]

Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.

Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy.  The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.

That proves the Iliad is true.

The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.

That proves they actually exist.

Find the flaw in that logic.

This is beautiful.

[aitm]

I aint' reading all this shit…..

[stromboli]

I aint' reading all this shit…..

And yet here you are......

[Randy Carson]

Is God Imaginary? Or "Why Atheism Fails to Prove Its Case"

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

II. When Does the Absence of Evidence Equal the Evidence of Absence?
     (Or, When is the inference from “I see none” to “There is none” valid?)
     A. Evidence Expectation Criterion
         - If an object exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for its existence.
     B. Knowledge Expectation Criterion
         - If evidence for an object exists, then we would expect to have knowledge of that evidence.

     In order for the atheist to prove his position regarding the non-existence of God, he must demonstrate that 1) both A and B are true and 2) we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists.

III. Problems with Satisfying the Expectation Criteria with respect to the God Question
     A. Why the “Evidence Expectation Criterion” Is Not Always Satisfied
     B. Why the “Knowledge Expectation Criterion” Is Not Always Satisfied
          1. Sin has had a negative impact on our ability to know ourselves, others and God accurately
          2. Atheists often apply inappropriately high standards when evaluation theistic arguments and evidence
          3. God may, in fact, “hide” Himself from us because
               a. making Himself obvious to all might coerce us into obeying him and stunt the development of our moral character
               b. there is no evidence that more obvious evidence of His existence would cause more people to want a personal relationship with Him; some people do not want there to be a God.

IV. Tooth Fairies, Leprechauns, and Santa Claus

V.    Summary and Conclusion

[Randy Carson]

Is God Imaginary?
Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, and God

Is God imaginary? Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens claim he is. But when they are asked to provide evidence for the position they hold, many times they reply that proving the non-existence of God is akin to proving the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. However the reasons why one believes in God are significantly different from those for which one may believe in Santa. In this article we examine how certain criteria for evidence works, and why one may be epistemically justified in asking for positive evidence for the atheist’s claim that God does not exist. Unless the atheist can provide good reasons for his disbelief, the theist may confidently answer the atheist’s question, “Is God imaginary?” with a resounding “No!”
The question is related to a larger one, namely, when the absence of evidence for something is evidence of its absence. We will address that questionâ€"but first, let’s define some basic terms.

I.   Introduction

Many have taken what they consider to be an apparent lack of evidence for God as evidence that God doesn’t exist; that is, they look around, don’t see “enough” evidence and conclude that atheism is true.
[Bertrand] Russell realized that the inference from apparent lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. Yet today, many call themselves “atheists” when really they are agnostics.
Let’s first define some terms around the question “Does God exist?”

"Does God exist?"

/ \

                  Theism: "God exists"                               Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"

                                /  \

               Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists”   Atheism: “God does not exist”

   
Soft Agnosticism:                                                   Hard Agnosticism:
"I don't knowif God exists,                                     "I don't know if God exists,
but it's possible for                                                and no one else can know either."   
someone to know."   

                           
Notice a few things about these definitions. First, non-theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive because you could be a non-theist and so fail to believe in God (i.e., you could lack belief in God) but you might also be an agnostic saying, “For all I know, God exists. I just don’t know.” Notice also how extreme hard agnosticism is, since it claims even more than atheists do; the hard agnostic says that everyone is wrong, both atheists and theists, and that they cannot know what they claim, even if they have apparently sound arguments!

There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?â€"Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.

[Nonsensei]

A seemingly structured post, made that way to disguise the fact that its based on an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[PickelledEggs]

[mod]See you in Purgatory. We gave you your warning.[/mod]

[TomFoolery]

In order for the atheist to prove his position regarding the non-existence of God, he must demonstrate that 1) both A and B are true and 2) we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists.

Again, you start with the premise that atheists believe they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God and we think we have proof.

THIS atheist will be the first to tell you that I don't know if there is a God, but I haven't personally encountered any proof I've found convincing. If I ever did (and it would take seeing something like God shaking hands with Scott Pelley on the Evening News) then sure, I'd believe in God.

Your argument is that atheists have unreasonably high standards. I think theists have ridiculously low standards. You will never get me to concede that God exists solely because of 1.) The Bible 2.) Individual accounts of miracles 3.) The beauty of things like a sunset or a snow-covered mountain 4.) The existence of morality.