A major bone of contention between us (TSZ) and our friends at Uncommon Descent is origins, how things came to be.
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary, UD is a Christian apologetics website looking to boost and support the Christian story of origins.
Barry has claimed: “The documents constituting the New Testament are vouchsafed with the blood of the martyrs. Nothing else comes remotely close.”
Islam and the Heaven’s Gate cult also have had people willing to die for them. So, they come close. Also, not all of them can be true given their contradictory truth claims. We can therefore rule out wanting to die for something being a guarantee of truth.
KirosFocus looks to bolster the argument with “with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”, but as far as I can tell this is poor thinking, he is citing the bible to support the biblical account (1 Cor 15:1) – So the number is irrelevant, we are still left with only the primary source.
KF also tells us, “we have four eyewitness lifespan biographies, one of which is volume 1 of the earliest history of the Christian movement, credibly initially complete c 62 AD. a two-volume work that has been abundantly vindicated as to habitual, detailed accuracy and capturing nuances of setting in ways not plausible for people projecting back from later times. This consciously historical work uses a second biography as a major source, reinforcing the conclusion”
This is closer to the truth; there are four accounts that were written at the earliest decades after the purported events all of which are part of the bible, not independent support for it. I image that people at that time would understand the nuances of biblical times far better than we do, so I’m not sure there’s any argument about ‘good context’ to be made.
See also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem)
So my question is, outside of the bible, what historical evidence do we have for the story of Jesus? Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-why-liars-lie/#comment-580232) I’d like to see those documents, the non-biblical ones.
The scientific aim is obviously to have a consilient picture of events, multiple independent and reinforcing narratives, like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion.
As far as I can tell, the birth certificate only shows that somebody was born and given the indicated name.
And I note that when atheists lack an argument they turn to insults.
You asked whether the people who testified they saw Joseph Smith’s golden tablets were liars. I said I don’t know and fifth said “there is a good possibility they weren’t lying.” Neither of those justify your response.
petrushka, is there some reason you think Mormons are more prone to lying than members of other religions? How about Jehovah’s Witnesses? I’d sure like to see your evidence.
They both knock on my door all the time and I’d sure like to be able to brush them off as members of a religion of proven inveterate liars. You would be doing me an invaluable service.
How do you know what to presuppose?
You’re so close, Mung! You can’t ignore the truth claims of other religions because you don’t like them.. But yet you have, or have picked one of many. Why is that? What mechanism did you employ?
Mung,
Quality tap dancing right there.
Interesting question.
In this case you presuppose those things which are necessary for knowledge. It works the same as axioms in mathematics. You choose the axioms that are necessary to accomplish the task you wish to undertake.
The reason that you posit that parallel lines never meet is because if you did not do so it would be impossible to do Euclidean geometry.
I know that knowledge is possible if the Christian God exists. I think that you would grant this as well. Therefore I presuppose the existence of the Christian God.
Now it’s at least possible that there are other presuppositions that would also facilitate the acquiring of knowledge but I have no clue what they would be.
That is why I ask how you know stuff in your worldview
peace
I was not insulting anyone. Bullshit is a technical term. There are less colorful synonyms, but none that work as well.
You are credulous with regard to the beliefs of your family and friends. You do not take seriously the teachings of other religions. You cannot give a reasoned argument for this.
Your scripture is not the default. No one needs to reject it. One does not need hate God to reject fairy tales. On merely needs to apply the same standards when evaluating all miracle stories. Uri Geller included.
You must have a super long life bulb in your projector!
The record’s skipping, FMM. Give it a gentle nudge.
Again, my comment was not an insult. It was colorful, but it described a fact.
The theists on this website assume that the religion they grew up in is the default, and one can only have a different view or belief by rejecting the default.
This is nonsense. An a lot of other things.
If you wish someone to believe in miracles, you need the kind of evidence that would hold up in court. We have rules of evidence in courts for a reason.
Argument by definition. Euclidean geometry is defined by axioms, including the parallel postulate.
Actually, you use what appears to be correct empirically, what works, for the usual mathematics. Experimental math sometimes ignores the empiric facts to see what you get with different axioms.
So? You could do Riemannian or Lobachevskian geometry without that posit. In fact, you can do Euclidean geometry (for surveying, etc., not just theoretically) even if space is Riemannian, as indeed many thought it was, if parallel lines don’t meet for many parsecs.
Euclid’s Fifth Postulate seemed to be a fact about the world (approximately true, even if it didn’t hold at great distances), that’s why it was postulated.
That’s the difference between your presupposition and a real axiom or postulate, the axiom is axiomatic, that is, true (true enough for our purposes, anyway). Math can generally be done quite differently with different axioms, and sometimes is. Your presupposition just makes god into something that gives you “absolute knowledge” that somehow doesn’t produce anything that Euclid’s approximate knowledge can.
Would it have been Euclid’s Fifth Absolute Truth if Euclid had been Christian? If not, what’s your point?
Mike Licona in debating Bart Ehrman pulled one of these disanalogous presuppositions as well. He claimed that physicists, et al., come up with unseen (at least at first) entities all the time to explain phenomena, and God was just like that for the resurrection. No, completely wrong, physicists come up with constrained possible entities to explain mass (Higg’s boson) or unseen gravitational phenomena (black holes) that are based on what is known from observation and models based upon those observations. If they did what FFM and Licona do, they’d just say “we posit a god who can do anything,” and then because the phenomenon is “anything,” gee, god explains it. And even when posited things like black holes and Higg’s bosons seem to work well to explain the phenomenon in question, physicists still want to be able to confirm that these exist by observation that fit very specific criteria.
Why would anyone grant that, except on the basis of your empty premise? Of course I grant the conclusion that the Christian god could grant me knowledge if that’s the definition for the Christian god, but a definition that didn’t come from any observable fact is not a sound premise (not about the world, that is), nothing that is the basis for meaningful truth.
Glen Davidson
If I exist, I know stuff.
I exist.
Therefore, I know stuff.
Every bit as valid as your “way of knowing things,” and every bit as sound. Unfortunately.
Glen Davidson
Wait a minute first we need to establish there it an “I” at the center. Zac would disagree that there is an “I” who exists.
He would say it’s a “we”. How do you know that he is incorrect?
No that is incorrect. Your conclusion “therefore I know stuff” does not follow necessary from your premise “I exist”. A rock exists and yet knows nothing
peace
How exactly do you know this? Please be specific it will make the process easier
peace
😉
peace
How do you know that the “I” is in question? Please be specific.
How do you know that? Please be specific, it will save time and trouble.
How do you know that? Please be specific, it will facilitate matters.
Glen Davidson
How exactly do you know what I meant by that statement? Please be specific, it will make the process easier.
Glen Davidson
“Absolute knowledge” has nothing to do with it. This is not about certainty it’s about any knowledge at all.
I have absolutely no idea how you could get that from anything I have said.
peace
I’m not exactly sure what you meant by that statement that is why I asked for clarification.
It seems you are making a claim about reality but you have provided no argument as to why we should accept it as true
peace
revelation,——- God reveals stuff to me.
Surely you would agree that God could reveal stuff in such a way that I could know it if he chose to?
peace
How do you know that? Please be specific, it will make matters easier.
How are you so obtuse? Please be specific, it will make things easier.
Glen Davidson
How do you know that? Please be specific, it make it all easier.
Why are you incompetent? Please be specific, it will make issues simpler.
Glen Davidson
Why don’t you get it? Please be specific, it will make any discussion easier.
Why do your claims about reality require no sound argumentation for us to accept them as true? Please be specific, it will make understanding easier.
Glen Davidson
I sense a frustration on your part is that because you don’t have an answer to my simple question?
This is not hard
I don’t know is a suitable response
peace
How do you know that? Please be specific for once, it would sure be nice to get a real answer.
How would you know that God could reveal stuff in such a way that you could know it if he chose to? Please be specific, it will make things easier.
Glen Davidson
I’m not asking you to accept my presuppositions. I’m merely sharing my presuppositions and asking you about yours.
peace
That’s not even a specific response, let alone a specific answer.
Glen Davidson
Unresponsive, and certainly not a specific answer.
Glen Davidson
How do you know that? 😉
peace
How do you know that yours is a meaningful question?
Glen Davidson
Because God is omniscient and omnipotent so he knows everything there is to know and has the ability to reveal stuff if he wants to.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that I don’t have an answer to the “how do you know stuff ?” question.
Trust me I do, the answer is revelation
peace
the same way I know anything, revelation
peace
And how do you know that? Other than your mere definition (construction) of such a God, that is. How do you know that God is omniscient and omnipotent in fact, rather than as an abstraction? Be specific in how you know this, it would really help.
Since you just use made-up BS as your “answer,” gee, yeah.
How do you know that? Please be specific, and maybe even meaningful for once.
Glen Davidson
How do you know that you can know anything via revelation? Be meaningful in your answer, it will be a pleasant change.
Glen Davidson
It’s a presupposition. You don’t justify presuppositions. Presuppositions are the foundation you use to justify everything else.
If the Christian God does not exist I could know nothing at all. This includes questions about the existence or nonexistence of God.
Perhaps there is another set of presuppositions that can serve as a basis for knowledge but I don’t know of any. That is why I keep asking you for yours
peace
Do you actually disagree that God (if he exists) could reveal stuff to me in such a way that I can know it?
That God could reveal stuff is part of the definition of God.
peace
How do you know that? Please be specific, it will really help.
How do you know that? Please be specific (as you’ve never been) in your answer, even though I’m pretty sure you can’t be.
Yes, but you’ve never told how your presuppostion actually does serve as a basis for knowledge, no matter how many times you’ve asserted the same. Please try to be specific, although specifics are what you’ve never produced
Glen Davidson
As an actual being, how the hell would I know?
How can you justify saying that God as an actual being could reveal stuff to you as you claim? Please be specific, and don’t resort to just made-up crap as you normally do.
Only if God is defined thusly. If defined otherwise, then it isn’t part of the definition. Why do you make up definitions (or use others’ made-up definitions) that are so obviously self-serving? Please be specific, it will either be right and undercut your position, or more ludicrous BS.
Glen Davidson
exactly
You don’t justify presuppositions. You assume them.
I don’t justify saying that parallel lines don’t touch in Euclidean space. The axiom that parallel lines don’t touch is part of what Euclidean space is.
If you define God as a slice of ham on rye it would not be part of the definition. But such a thing would not be God either.
I’ve said repeatedly I presuppose the Christian God and he is omniscient and omnipotent by definition.
You can try and define a circle as a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles but to do such a thing say more about you than it does about the thing you are defining.
peace
Well this would take months of discussion to unpack. Lets just start with the basics
The Logos is truth and truth is required for knowledge. Once you give me a sign that you understand this small thing we can go on to deeper stuff.
peace
Revelation
God reveals stuff to me through various means according to his sovereign will. He can do so because he is God.
If that is not specific enough for you ask clarifying questions and I will be happy to oblige.
peace
More importantly, how the hell would you know?
Quite wrong. Proper presuppositions are open to question and should get some sort of justification, ultimately. Kantian, or some such thing, more or less the recognition of how we comprehend rather than just see.
Your problem is that you only have a presupposition that neither explains nor has any sort of justification for it. It’s worthless altogether.
No, you don’t, but thinkers do. Mostly by qualification and observation.
It’s the empiric part of utilitarian math. That you know no better is a part of your ignorance of how things are actually known.
Why not? Please be specific, as your tiresome claims are utterly useless for discussion.
I don’t care. Why do you do so, other than by taking up a herd belief? Please be specific either way, it would be helpful to know the reason for your codswallop.
So God is like a defined geometric shape? Or is that merely more disanalogy? Please be specific, rather than vague as you almost always are.
Glen Davidson
You mean, your baseless claims?
Completely vague and meaningless assertion. Try again, and please be specific, since your hazy and vague certitude is not only a nuisance, it’s downright anti-thought.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman:
Wow, non-specific and meaningless.
How do you know that God reveals anything to you? How does his being God allow him to do so (spare me the evidenceless definition)? Please be specific, since only the details count, not the hazy beliefs that you cherish.
One cannot clarify smoke (at least not without destroying it as smoke). You begin with meaningless, unevidenced terms abstracted from specific thought, applying them without any specific, meaningful reference. It is worthless trying to clarify what is inherently muddled and meaningless.
Glen Davidson
That’s more skepticism than I care to entertain, but you might have your tongue planted firmly in your cheek.
Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, I’m the only person on the planet who possesses that document and has the name and birthdate listed on the document.
That’s marvelous, but how do you determine the source of the revelations you receive? What is your source detector?
For extra credit, how do you receive these revelations? Through your senses, or by some other modality?
As far as I know, a birth certificate is usually a public document. Anyone with enough specific information can order a copy of the document.
revelation.
but you already knew that
Please elaborate,
I think my presupposition is the only thing that adequately explains the universe and everything in it. It’s possible that there is another set of presuppositions that might explain but I don’t know of any. That is why I ask
How could you observe parallel lines that touch? It that anything like observing a square circle?
1) It’s called the law of contradiction. Do you accept it?
2) is the truth of a claim contingent on it’s usefulness for discussion?
a) how do you know this?
Because the existence of the Christian God is necessary for knowledge AFAIK
Do you know of another presupposition that works?
No God is a not like a circle except that just as circle can not be not a circle and God can not be not God
this is true non matter how you try and define them
1) He tells me so
2) If he did not reveal stuff to me I could not know anything at all
If you ask clarifying questions it will make this easier. But I’ll give it a go
1) Truth is what God believes
2) the Logos is the exact image of God, his thoughts and his beliefs
…..Therefore the Logos is truth
If this is not the sort of thing you are looking for let me know
Wow that is quite a charge.
It doesn’t sound very open minded
1) Do you have evidence that it is inherently muddled and meaningless?
2) How exactly do you know that the concept of the Christian God is inherently muddled and meaningless
3) Since you believe that the concept of the Christian God is inherently muddled and meaningless how can you claim to be unbiased in judging evidence in support of the existence the Christian God?
peace