1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Something inside a container can't be infinite.  Whether there is a multiverse or not, does not affect theism at all.  However I do not believe in it because of the reasons stated already which you have not addressed.  Let me add this to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Anyone have anything else to say about the mutiverse?  It doesn't matter to Theism one way or the other but it does matter to Atheism a great deal in explaining how random chance could have produced the world we find around us. 

[shadowhawk]

Possible or reasonable doubt.  No one ever has a case so strong that all possible doubt can be removed.  Read the topic Evidence for Atheism??? and you will discover just how weak their case is.  In law they talk about reasonable doubt.  You must have evidence in order to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt but no amount of evidence can prove a case beyond possible doubt.If proving something beyond possible doubt is required than we could never believe anything.  In section one i gave arguments for the existence of God.  In section two i asked Which God?  In section three I presented some arguments for it being Christianity.  In section four, this section I have been dealing with issues brought up during the previous discussions.  Most of the objections have been name calling and logical fallacies.   There have been hundreds of these attempts.  There have been many attempts at derailing the topic by bringing up unrelated subjects.

 

Reasonable doubt is the standard.  Where is the evidence pointing?

 

 

[platypus]

How come there's real doubt about whether Jesus even existed? 

[shadowhawk]

Good, what would we need to prove Jesus really existed?  What would a reasonable proof look like?  What evidence would a reasonable person need to prove the existence of a historical person?

[shadowhawk]

The authenticity of Jesus’ existence is easily proven.  Not only are there the genealogical studies of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but we have extra-biblical sources that are simply too numerous to include here but I have done so in the evidence for Christianity in section three of this topic..  The plain, historical truth is that there is no single person in all of human history that more has been written about more than Jesus Christ.  From Roman and Jewish historians to secular historians of the present age and from the age of antiquities, there is no shortage of the Man from Galilee.  Based upon historical methods, which include a critical analysis, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars and modern and ancient historians all agree that Jesus lived on earth, lived in Judea, was a real Man in space and time, and His teachings have been the single, greatest influence that the world has ever known.  There may be significant differences on His teachings but there is major agreement on His historicity, most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.

[shadowhawk]

I have given much evidence for Christianity even though the skeptics demand absolute evidence.   Beyond a reasonable doubt does not demand absolute evidence ,which does not exist.  Faith does not demand no evidence as I have shown repeatedly but is based on some evidence.  Atheists are the ones with blind faith.  No evidence there is no God.  Can you prove a negative?  Here is a great article.  

Are atheists right to say that you can’t prove a universal negative like “God does not exist”?

“I hear a lot of atheists complaining that they shouldn’t have any burden of proof because it is impossible to prove a universal negative, i.e. – “there is no God”.

Here’s a post from William Lane Craig about it.

Excerpt:

    The first claim is, ironically, usually found on the lips of atheists, who thereby seek to excuse themselves from bearing any share of the burden of proof in the discussion. Usually, the claim is that a universal negative cannot be proved, and therefore the claim that “There is no God” is unprovable. The second claim is typically given as the reason why a universal negative cannot be proved: no matter how much knowledge you have acquired, there will always be more facts that you do not yet know, and perhaps the exception is among them. So one can never prove that there is no God. Perversely, this is somehow interpreted, not as an admission that atheism is indefensible, but as a demonstration that it is in no need of defense!

    Unfortunately, the argument is misconceived on a couple of counts.

    First, negative, universally quantified statements can be proved. We do this all the time. When we make statements about “all” or “none,” we are speaking about what is the case with respect to a certain domain. We are saying that all or none of the members of that domain have or has a certain property. If the domain is not too large, I can confidently make universally quantified affirmative and negative statements. For example, I am quite confident that “No U.S. Senator is a Muslim.” Or again, if I have a typical sample of the domain, I can make inductive inferences on the basis of the evidence from the sample to the whole, even if the whole domain is too large for me to canvass; for example, taking as my domain all the microbes on Earth, I can confidently assert, “No microbes have brains.”

    Now someone might say that while it is admittedly true that negative, universal statements can sometimes be proven, still the point remains that in the case of God, the domain is too large and our sample too small to come to any negative conclusion. But those who propound this argument seem to think that the way one determines whether God exists is by taking a sort of universal survey to see if anything answering to the description of God exists somewhere out there. There are, however, other ways of coming to a knowledge of negative, universally quantified statements than doing an inductive survey.

    For example, we can have knowledge of negative, universally quantified statements on the basis of things’ essential properties; for example, “No water molecules are composed of CO2.” (Even if something looked and behaved just like water but was made of CO2 , it still would not be water but just a look-alike substance.) Or if we could show that a notion is logically impossible, we would know that it does not exist; for example, “There are no married bachelors.” Significantly, many atheists have tried just this route to proving that God does not exist, arguing that the idea of a being which is all-powerful or all-knowing is logically incoherent.

    [...]Second, the statement that “God does not exist” is not a universally quantified statement. When the theist asserts that “God exists,” the word “God” is being used as a proper name, not as a common noun. It is not a statement like “Dogs exist” but rather like “Lassie exists.” In order to prove that God does not exist, one need not prove that there are no gods whatsoever. Our interest is in one specific being, not in all the other beings which may have been imagined or worshipped throughout the world. So the claim that “God does not exist” is really a singular claim, like “Sherlock Holmes does not exist” or “Harry Potter does not exist.” No one thinks that negative, singular claims cannot be proven.

So there are two ways to disprove a universal negative. Look where you expect the thing to be evident, and show that the evidence is not there. For example, show evidence that the universe is eternal. You can’t have a Creator if you can show evidence that the universe is eternal. The second way is to show that the concept of God is logically contradictory, e.g. – that the concept of a “timeless person” is self-contradictory. Scholarly atheists try to do this, but this has not filtered down to the rank and file, which is why they still hold to these atheist slogans like “you can’t prove a universal negative”. Of course you can.

And finally, Craig concludes with some good advice:

    The bottom line is that we have no choice but to go on the basis of the knowledge and evidence that we do have—just we do in all other affairs of life.

Rank and file atheists seem to be very keen on holding out for today’s scientific and historical data to be overturned by Star Trek theories of the future. But the more we study the good, scientific arguments for God’s existence, the harder it is for naturalism to account for it. I am talking about the origin of the universe, the cosmic fine-tuning, the habitability argument, the origin of life, the origin of phyla, scientific evidence for consciousness and free will (e.g. – mental effort) and so on. Not to mention other arguments like the moral argument and the minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus.

We have to decide on the data we have now. And the data we have now fits better with a theistic worldview than an atheistic worldview. I can imagine all kinds of data that would argue against Christian theism. Finding the bones of Jesus. The universe being eternal. Experimental evidence for the multiverse. A probable naturalistic scenario for the origin of life. Etc. Arguing against Christian theism is not hard, it just takes work. That’s why intelligent and informated atheists like Peter Millican and Austin Dacey can do it, but rank and file atheists want to talk about “I lack a belief in God” and “I can’t prove a universal negative”.

No one is asking atheists to prove anything, just as theists don’t prove anything. We are asking them to give logical arguments with premises that are supported by the evidence. And that’s what we expect theists to do, too. Once we have all the arguments and evidence on both sides, then people can decide for themselves. You don’t have to “prove” anything in a debate, you just have to state your case as persuasively as possible and the other side does the same, then people decide. Simple.”

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 September 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DID JESUS EXIST?  EXTRA BIBLICAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEMCOueLDo



 

[serp777]

[shadowhawk]

I have listened to these two videos.  The first has  no responses to Krauss but I have listened to the real debates and he actually did quite poorly. I recommend you listen to the full debates on you tube to get both sides.  The second by Hitchens is edited so it does not give the full picture.  I recommend the debates with Peter Hitchens Christopher's brother who is a Christian.  Listen to both sides.  Much of this has nothing to do with Christianity so I will leave it there.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 September 2014 - 02:43 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Here is the Top 10 Most Significant Figures in Human History:

1. Jesus Christ
2. Napoleon Bonaparte
3. William Shakespeare
4. Prophet Muhammad
5. Abraham Lincoln
6. George Washington
7. Adolf Hitler
8. Aristotle
9. Alexander the Great
10. Thomas Jefferson

 

http://www.christian...kipedia-110450/

 

http://www.amazon.co...res Really Rank.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 September 2014 - 11:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

When Were The Gospels Written?

September 4, 2012 by Jonathan McLatchie 2 Comments

When were the gospel biographical accounts of Jesus written? One popular claim by skeptics is that the gospels were written so long after the events which they narrate that their historical and biographical value is suspect. While virtually all scholars maintain that all of the gospels were written in the first century, within liberal scholarship it is conventionally thought that all four gospels were written post-70AD. It is my own view, however, that this proposition is largely arbitrary, and based largely on a false presumption that a prediction, on the part of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple in AD70, must have been composed after-the-fact. If, however, one takes seriously the proposition that prophecy by a divine figure is possible, then the justification for the post-70AD dating largely disappears.

I am going to propose something radical — namely, that all of the synoptic gospels (that is, Matthew, Mark and Luke) pre-date AD60 and perhaps even AD50, thus being removed from the passion events (33AD) by possibly less than 20 years, with the underlying source material behind the gospels dating back even further still. Further, I contend that John’s gospel likely pre-dates AD70. Moreover, I am going to argue that we possess at least two sources from the 30s AD, being removed from the passion events by only two or three years!

When compared to other ancient biographies, these sources are very early indeed. Sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations (or, in some cases, even centuries) from the events that they detail. The two earliest extant biographies of Alexander the Great, for example, were penned by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years following his death. But classical historians still regard them as being trustworthy. The legends which concern Alexander the Great didn’t develop until centuries after those two writers. A.N. Sherwin-White argues in his book, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament that “Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.” Sherwin-white further argues that, for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be “unbelievable”.

So, what about the dating of the gospels? It is generally agreed among scholars that Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke subsequently utilised Mark’s gospel as source material, and then John was written last (and independently). Luke is likely to have been the latest of the synoptics. But Luke is quoted elsewhere in the New Testament, by Paul. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:18, “For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” This latter citation is from Luke 10:7. Clearly, then, Luke (or, at the very least, the source material upon which Luke is based) must pre-date the writing of 1 Timothy (we’ll come to the dating of 1 Timothy shortly). The appeal to the quoted text as coming from “Scripture” would also seem to militate against a possible objection that the quoted phrase was a popular cliche which was independently quoted by Luke and Paul.

Paul also quotes from Luke’s gospel, in connection with the Lord’s supper, in 1 Corinthians 11:

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

In addition, 1 Timothy 6 also makes reference to Pontius Pilate, suggesting that its author (in my view, Paul) was aware of the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ trial. Paul is also evidently aware of the 12 disciples (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15).

So, what then can we conclude? If – as I maintain – the pastoral epistles are genuinely Pauline, then Luke’s gospel (or, at the very least, Luke’s source material) must predate AD60 by far enough to be regarded as Scripture at the time of the writing of 1 Timothy (probably the early 60s). Furthermore, I would argue, it is likely to also predate the writing of 1 Corinthians in the early 50’s.

This is also consistent with evidence from other areas. For example, the Acts of the Apostles (which post-dates Luke’s gospel) does not mention the destruction of the temple in AD 70, nor the death of Peter or Paul, nor for that matter the persecution of Christian martyrs under Nero in the 60s or the Great Fire of Rome from which it resulted. If such events had already taken place by the time Luke wrote Acts, one would expect to find a pertaining description. But, instead, Acts leaves us hanging, by ending after Paul has been placed under house-arrest.

The Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, and its dating to the 50’s AD is virtually undisputed. The same cannot, however, be said of 1 Timothy, the genuineness of which is largely thrown into question by contemporary scholarship. For this reason, I will now defend the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, before proceeding with some further points.

The testimony of the early church is as strong for the Pastoral Epistles as for any of Paul’s writings except for Romans and 1 Corinthians. Common arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are as follows:

1. The historical references in the Pastoral Epistles is not readily harmonised with the accounts given in the Acts of the Apostles.
2. The pastoral epistles were written to combat the Gnosticism of the second century.
3. The church organisational structure (elders and deacons, etc) is too well developed for Paul’s day
4. The Greek vocab contains words found nowhere else in the NT.

Regarding (1), this objection is valid only if Paul was never released from his Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts. But he was released, since Acts doesn’t record his execution and Paul also anticipates his release (see Philippians 1:19,25,26 and 2:24). (2) is fairly weak because, unlike second century Gnosticism, the false teachers described were still within the church and their teaching was based on Judaistic legalism. (3) is extremely weak because the church organisational structure described in the pastoral epistles is also mentioned in Acts 14:23 and in Philippians 1:1. As for (4), this objection is weak since the pastoral epistles are addressing a different subject matter.

Besides the testimony of the early church fathers, positive reasons for thinking that the pastoral epistles belong to Paul include the counter-productivity of 1 Tim 1:13 (“…although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor and an insolent man…”) and the fact that 2 Timothy 3:13 and Titus 1:10 warns against deceivers, whilst none of them include any deviant doctrine. Also, Paul quotes a verse (1 Timothy 5:18) which he has also quoted elsewhere (1 Corinthians 9:9).

But there is also, in my opinion, a very strong argument for supposing that 1 Timothy can be taken as having been written before AD68. Among the fragments that have been found from 1947 and following in the Qumran caves around the Dead Sea, are some fragments which appear to be from 1 Timothy 3:16 and 4:1-3 (fragment 7Q4). The strength of 7Q4 on those verses in Timothy is that it contains the end of five consecutive lines, which makes it far easier to identify! The odds against this not being 1 Timothy are astronomical.

But here’s the thing: all archaeologists are in agreement that the contents of Qumran cave 7 were deposited prior to AD68 and that the cave wasn’t revisited until 1955. Moreover, scholars are in agreement that the fragment is a copy, in which case the original must be even earlier than AD68!

But are there any fragments of the gospels which feature in the Qumran caves? A world-leading Papyrologist, Jose O’Callaghan, has identified Qumran fragment 7Q5 as a segment from the gospel of Mark. Written in Greek (as opposed to Aramaic) and on papyrus (as opposed to parchment), the fragment formed part of a scroll (not a codex) since the writing was only present on one side of the papyrus. The fragment contained only 19 letters.

O’Callaghan studied four of those letters: n n e s, and concluded that they must be part of the word Gennesaret. This could have come from 1 Maccabees 11:67, but the context wouldn’t fit that verse. He then looked at the same word in the gospel of Mark, and he found that the entire fragment fitted neatly into the space required for Mark 6:52-53. There was even a blank space at the end of verse 52, which was a typical means of indicating a break in the text.

Of course, one must bear in mind that the source material for the four gospels, including Q, M & L (Matthew and Luke’s special sources respectively), and Mark’s passion narrative, must date back even further still. Then there is the creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (which mentions Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and post-resurrection appearances) which likely dates to within the first three years of the Christian movement. We also have the Carmen Christi, quoted by Paul in Philippians 2, which likely dates to the first decade of the church (which reveals a very high Christology — revering Christ as being “in very nature God” — and mentions Jesus’ death by crucifixion).

What about the dating of the Gospel of John? It is generally thought among contemporary scholars that John’s gospel was the last to be written, and that John likely wrote it at the close of the first century, possibly in the 90’s AD. But is it possible that John wrote his gospel prior to this time? Take a look at John 5:2:

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.”

These collonades, along with the rest of the temple, were destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Could this suggest that John’s gospel was written considerably earlier than is often taken for granted?

One could go on. But I think that I have presented a compelling cumulative argument for dating the gospels earlier than the dating often supposed (which is largely determined on the basis of a suppositional predisposition against the possibility of prophecy concerning the events which would befall Jerusalem in AD70).

[shadowhawk]

THE RESURRECTION AND HISTORY  THE EVIDENCE

 

View on Vimeo.

 

 

 

 

View on Vimeo.

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 September 2014 - 12:46 AM.

[shadowhawk]

[addx]

Awww, noone to play with?

[shadowhawk]

Always relevant but who could expect more given your past contribution:)

[shadowhawk]

FINE TUNING  OF THE UNIVERSE;  discussed in section one

 

 

 

 

 

[addx]

Always relevant but who could expect more given your past contribution:)

Don't get angry, you're the one who tortured everyone with your inability to reason and ran everyone off.

I guess that what you wanted? Or did you fail at getting what you wanted?

[shadowhawk]

 

Always relevant but who could expect more given your past contribution:)

Don't get angry, you're the one who tortured everyone with your inability to reason and ran everyone off.

I guess that what you wanted? Or did you fail at getting what you wanted?

 

  have a nice day.

 

[addx]

Always relevant but who could expect more given your past contribution:)

Don't get angry, you're the one who tortured everyone with your inability to reason and ran everyone off.

I guess that what you wanted? Or did you fail at getting what you wanted?

  have a nice day.

You too

[shadowhawk]

FINE TUNING TWO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

FINE TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

So many disputes are like this.  Ill take mu marbles and go away and play with you no more.     Enjoy

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Do eye witness accounts which are true always match?

 

 

 

 

 

[platypus]

There's also tons of evidence AGAINST Christianity. This is making rounds today on social media and it is really hard to impossible to explain why just about every relevant historical text of the era does NOT mention Jesus:

 

http://www.inquisitr...-never-existed/

 

“Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus’ nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,” Paulkovich states. “Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.”

 

 

“When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not — and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumran and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions,” Paulkovich writes, “I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character.”

 

 

Is it important for Christianity if Christ existed? I would assume so...

 

[shadowhawk]

platypus:  There's also tons of evidence AGAINST Christianity. This is making rounds today on social media and it is really hard to impossible to explain why just about every relevant historical text of the era does NOT mention Jesus:
http://www.inquisitr...-never-existed/  

The key word here is “relevant.”  No tests chosen mention Christ because they were not about him.  No “relevant,” texts mention George Washington because they were not about Him. The article only mentions 126 historical texts but there are tens of thousands of historical texts that address him far far more than any other figure in ancient history.  We discussed this at legnth earlier in section 3.

 

Quote
    “Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus’ nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,” Paulkovich states. “Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.”
Quote
    “When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not — and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumran and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions,” Paulkovich writes, “I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character.”

Is it important for Christianity if Christ existed? I would assume so...

How does the writer know Paul does not mention Mary?  He cites some of the relevant historical documents which do mention Christ!  He talks out of both sides of his mouth.  Other historical documents mention Mary!  It may come as a supprise but Christ had a mother even if Paul does not mention her.  This argument from silence is a logical fallacy.  Paul knew everything about Christ’s life having learned it from the other apostles.  A writer has a purpose when they write.  Just because they do not mention the sky is blue or write in exhaustive detail about everything, does not mean they were not aware of many other things.  So this conclusion is nonsense

No other historical figure of the time has as much historical evidence as Christ.  Reject Christ on this basis and you would have to reject most of history.  Shall I compare?  I already did it earlier.

[cats_lover]

Shadowhawk, you have a masters degree in History Philosophy (as i can read in your profile), so i assume that you know something about history. I want to ask you:

 

• In which year appears the first text that mention Jesus?
• In which year we began to count the years in function of the birth of Jesus?
• How can we know the date of these texts? Did the author wrote the date in the paper? Or we need other historical references in the paper?
• And finally, it is the date of these texts reliable?

[shadowhawk]

KNOW WHAT THIS SONG IS ABOUT?

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

    “In which year appears the first text that mention Jesus?
    In which year we began to count the years in function of the birth of Jesus?
    How can we know the date of these texts? Did the author wrote the date in the paper? Or we need other historical references in the paper?
    And finally, it is the date of these texts reliable?”

First we have the actual events which took place in space and time before anything was written down.  What kind of immediate evidence is there?  Memories and eye witness accounts much like you remember your own Childhood, siblings and environment.  Lots of people were affected and lives were changed.  How do we know you exist?  First people experienced you and they changed as a result of it.  This is evidence for you existing..  We first have the people who walked, talked and lived with Christ and they became the heart of the earliest Church.  There were a few thousand of them.  The encounter changed their lives and the y told others.  So, there was the living Church and they spread everywhere because something real happened.  The Church is evidence.

Paul was an enemy of the Church but was converted to Christ very early, within a year or two of the crucifixion. It would be natural as the early eyewitnesses began to die off, to also write down what they had seen and heard.  Much teaching was verbal at first.  The apostles taught as did others.  We still do this today for most subjects.  Some in outlying areas had letters written to them because that was the main means of communication.  These letters were copied and traded between Christians all over the expanding Christian world.  

The early Church were great at memorizing because they had no paper.  They sang songs which contained the heart of their faith and helped them memorize.  The New testament is full of these early songs and they are very early, some perhaps predating the death of Christ.  These songs and creeds became part of the letters which were sent between the Churches.  You can identify them in the Greek text and they are very early.  This is a living community of people and all these things took place and changed their lives.

So they were witnesses and communication of various forms took place between them.  
Some areas became centers of Christian activities such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephysus, Alexandra, Rome, and India and the British Isles.  Letters were exchanged and often read in Church services.  Especially valued were the writings of the Apostles and those which had their approval.  Eventually all the apostles, with the exception of John were martyred.  Leaders were raised up to take their place and many of them died.  They wrote letters as well and often quoted the Apostles.  The Christians passed down what they had received, in Church structure, Worship and Scripture.

What are some ways we can date the text?  I will address this next time.  Feel free to ask me anything because this is just off the top of my head and I have left a lot out.