Theres not much point if I gave you the names myself. That be such a waste of time, since you'll just use the FALLACY AUTHORITY!! on me. Habermas however has the credential and authority to be making such claims, maybe you should call him out as being fallacious as well??
Look into the works of these 10 names I've provided, they would sometimes mention 'most scholars agree' in their books on topics that are shut cases. I'll give you one such example. Gary Habermas in his book touching on 'Jesus resurrection and contemporary critism' wrote "Virtually all scholars today agree that Jesus died by crucifixion and that his body was afterwards buried."Now, either Habermas is lying, and would become the laughing stock of his peers, or he's actually telling it as it is.
I'll give you an example of the kind of error you are doing right now.
A: Most biologist agree that unicorns have blue horns
B: Roger is a unicorn
conclusion: Roger has a blue horn
You haven't proved that unicorns exist and even if they did it doesn't mean that they have blue horns just because a bunch of people said so. And you haven't actually shown that most biologist actually believe they do have blue horns. And 6 biologist isn't a majority of them.
Craig is wrong in saying the original disciples were willing to die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The fact is, there is no conclusive historical evidence of what happened to most of the disciples. The book of Acts mentions that James was killed by Herod but that's it. Other sources of information on what happened to the life of the disciples are 2nd and 3rd century documents, many of which have conflicting reports.
I cannot believe that William Craig's arguments are convincing to anyone. I mean has he never seen a Derren Brown episode? Or a magic show? Also this was written 70 to 120 years after he died. Also they could have just made it up, like so many people do. There have been mass sightings of UFO's and bigfoot and the lockness monster, so why is Jesus any more believable.
Because the majority of reputable historians and scholars, whom are recognized as world's leading authorities in this field, have unanimously agreed with the facts craig have presented to support his explanation. Frankly, if you don't approach this subject with any agenda or bias, and just solely look at the facts using the historical texts that are availabe (including non-christian sources), the most rational explanation is that the crucifixion and resurrection really occurred.
@barryddavis274 So you are actually saying that the best explanation for the Jesus story is that it is true and he rose from the grave and thousands of people rose from the grave too? Are you insane?
The is ridiculous, there is not historical evidence that the gospels were written by people that even knew Jesus and even if they had there is no reason to trust their claims because back then would believe anything, alot like now. Stop letting WLC do your thinking for you.
Where did I say thousands of people rose from the grave too?
Please don't twist my words... Yeah I believe the best explanation for Jesus story, is the resurrection as being the most probable conclusion. Oh and there is evidence the gospels were written by people Jesus knew... The 4 accounts read like biographies and include familiarity of contemporary culture, the land, the laws, the people, eyewitness testimony on events that can only come from people who lived during (cont)
that time, as well as figures that was closely familiar with the Nazarene called Jesus. This is the general concensus between most scholars as well ( I can provide more names if you want) , so I'm not really sure what you mean when you say theres no proof the gospels were written by people that even knew Jesus...
@barryddavis274 Where did I say thousands of people rose from the grave too?
You are arguing that the bible is a hyper-accurate historical text. The bible says that thousands of people rose from their graves at the same time Jesus did, therefore you are arguing that thousands of people rose from their graves. Funny, you'd think the Romans would have written about that. And the eye witnesses claim is a joke.
Again, can you direct me as to where the bible says thousands of people rose from their graves at the same time Jesus did? First time I'm hearing this.
First, whoever “the holy ones” were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e‧gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69)
@thesparitan (CONT)The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.
@barryddavis274 "The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia."
Wow that is so much hand waving if I didn't know better I would think you are trying to hail a cab.
@thesparitan This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life the way you think, for on the third day they wrote that, Jesus became “the firstborn from the dead.”
@barryddavis274 Stop, its pointless. What you consider evidence is so broad that you should be accepting almost every religion on the planet and maybe most wacko beliefs like UFO's and 9/11 inside job conspiracies.
Man the only one thats abit strange here is you bro. You keep bringing up UFOs and 9/11 or santa?? And even science not existing 2000 years ago? Talk about tangents. Have you even directly given any evidence to support any of your claims? To be fair, all you've done so far is criticize and come up with some uninformed claims about the bible...
@barryddavis274 Yep, ignoring the substance of what points, good work. You are either being dishonest, what a surprise from an apologist or you are just stupid. I think we are done here. I draw the line at people willfully ignoring my arguments. Good day apologist. The only person you will convince is yourself.
Try to stay on topic next time you challenge someone else dude. You really do have a bad habit of attacking the person you're conversing with, rather then the conversation itself.
Oh my bad, so 6 historians represents a majority of them? So what is there only ten historians who specialize in that era in the world with? Pointing out six doesn't prove your claim that a majority believe whatever.
"Heck I can list you 1000 names and you'd still ignore the evidence."
FALLACY, FALLACY, FALLACY, FUCKING FALLACY OF AUTHORITY!!!!, can I make it more clear that just because you have a 1000 or 1billion it doesn't make it true
So let me get this straight, if I could not produce any names for you, you'll just say, I got no legs to stand on, no proof, hence I'm wrong about my 'most authority figures agree with christ crucifixion did take place' as being fact.
Yet if I give you those names, you still say I'm wrong, since you accuse me of using fallacy of authority. Hmmm, bit of a catch twenty two innit? Guess Then i was right bout your strong worldview making you abit unreasonable...
@barryddavis274 Ok, first of all let me make clear that you are making two claims, each with their own true values. First claim is that the majority agree, which you haven't proven. Second claim is that the majority proves x, which is a fallacy from authority. It isn't hard.
If you cannot understand the most basic logic we have for argumentation then I fail to see this conversation going anywhere.
While scholars and historians may differ on explanation of certain evidences, there are still evidences considered facts and regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars. including skeptics. Heres one such fact.
Jesus was killed by crucifixion.
Sources that agree:
Gary Robert Habermas: PH.D in history & philosophy of religion
James Tabor: PH.D in new testament & early christian literature
Robert Bowman, Darrell L. Bock, Darrell L. Bock, Paul Copan, Richard G. Swinburne, Nicholas Thomas Wright.
The thing is man, it all comes down most the time to a person's worldview. If you're set in believing there's no such thing as a god, for various personal reasons, then it doesn't really matter what evidence someone puts your way.Heck I can list you 1000 names and you'd still ignore the evidence.
You'll just keep twisting the evidence to suit your views. And scoff+instantly disregard anything that threatens it. So instead of reasoning what the best explanation is, based on the evidence presented, an overly biased view from the beginning, won't even allow any room for resurrection as even a possibility, even though there have been much more books written by critical scholars and philosophers that support this, instead of the weaker explanation Ehrmans has presented.
@barryddavis274 OK, lets take your claim that eyewitnesses accounts can be taken seriously. So that would mean that you believe in UFO's, alien abductions, and you also believe that Sathya Sai Baba is the reincarnated guru that can levitate, health the sick with his hands and bring people back from the dead? Well thousands in Indian say they sow him do it, and we can interview them today. The bible is even worse then those sources because they were writen 70 years after Jesus died.
Marks supposedly written earliest at 35 years after Jesus died, and the last of the 4 gospels was completed 70 years after he died.So it would still be valid enough time period. The pros are that they're early enough, they're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, there's continuity, there's proximity, there's verification of certain distinct points with archeology and other documents, and then theres inner logic. That's what pulls it together.
@barryddavis274 So you ignored most of what I wrote, including my claim of fallacy which you haven't contested.
So lets just recap what you are actually saying.
You think that 2000 year old documents that was written 35 years after Jesus died, by eyewitnesses that lived before science existed claim that Jesus rose from the grave after death and violated the laws of the physics and that is a good case for god?
Are you fucking high? How does that prove anything?
@barryddavis274 I will have to repeat, If you believe eyewitnesses accounts can be taken that seriously that would mean that you believe in UFO's, bigfoot, leprechauns alien abductions, fairies and you also believe that Sathya Sai Baba is the reincarnated guru that can levitate, heal the sick with his hands and bring people back from the dead? Thousands of people claim he has done those things, they say the watch him do it.
Before Craig can positively claim his 4 historical facts as facts and expect them to serve as support for his belief system or challenge non-believers to successfully dismiss them as such he needs to do one important thing. He needs to PROVE that human beings of the time period in question were incapable of lying, embellishment, or exaggeration. Till then these supposed historical "facts" are nothing of the sort! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support!!
Atheists uphold their believe that there is no God - and it IS a believe - by disregarding inconvenient evidence. They simply assert that "it is not evidence" but make no serious attempt to provide an alternative explanation.
@Hannodb1961 Right, it is the same kind of belief as believing that 2+2=4. Some people call that 'knowledge' or 'giving the proper weight to the evidence'. Gossip and fables are among the weakest evidence you can possibly get. Considering the omnipotence and omniscience that is generally ascribed to the Christian god, one would expect better.
@beriukay Right, so according to you we cannot really know that Julius Ceaser really lived. dr Craig has given an excellent defense of the Bible, and all you can do is dismiss it as "fables", which it is clearly not. As Craig said in video 5: The Atheist "...needs not only to tear down all the evidence FOR the Resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favour of some naturalistic alternatives". The latter is never done, or its done very sloppy.
@Hannodb1961 Well, we'd first have to look at all the different books about Caesar, and discount biased claims or claims that are obviously factually incorrect. If a book claimed that Caesar freed the Romans from the Carthaginians and parted the Mediterranean sea, one would hope that you would realize this is garbage.
I expect we would find warring factions that all agreed that Caesar existed. Not just a bunch of the same people. We would also find works written BY Caesar.
@beriukay "Well, we'd first have to look at all the different books about Caesar, and discount biased claims or claims that are obviously factually incorrect" And that is exactly what dr Craig did. I could go over it again, but then again, dr Craig already explained all of it.
@Hannodb1961 But otherwise, no. It is not my job to invent stories for why this is a fable. Science is good enough: human females don't magically make babies; humans don't rise from the dead; demons don't exist and can't be cast out into pigs. The naturalistic alternative is that a bunch of self-interested priest made a bunch of crap up.
@beriukay ", no. It is not my job to invent stories" Two blunders here:The word Rational comes from the word "Ratio" - to weight arguments against each other. We have a historical account with excellent explanatory power to explain the origin of the Christian church.In order to refute is, you need to come up with an alternative that has better explanatory power.This is how science works as well: You keep a theory until a better one comes along.After 2 centuries of criticism, we're still waiting
@Hannodb1961 First I want to apologize for spamming you. I didn't notice I was talking to the same guy until I hit that YouTube wall that says you talk too much. Secondly, I think we're talking across each other a bit here. If you want to have a lengthier discussion in private to try and figure out the truth (about one another's position, as well as about the topic), that'd be cool. But I'm not terribly interested in throwing sound bytes back and forth. What say you?
@beriukay 1) No apology needed. I have completely forgotten about this discussion, I see I posted only 6 days ago, but it feels longer. We could take this discussion elsewhere, but I must first ask the question, what do we hope to achieve by it? I have investigated the truth claims of my faith to the point where I can say I no longer believe, I know. I also know, from many discussions I already had, that people hardly ever change their minds based on an argument.
@beriukay 2) Regarding the Resurrection, if you don't find WLC convincing, I'm afraid I won't be able to do better. As I said, rational comes from the word ratio, to weigh arguments against each other. I have found many who ridiculed and belittled WLC, but I have never found someone who could actually refute him with the same level of detail and clear logic. In the end, what you want to believe remain your choice, and I only offer you the merits on which I accept my faith.
@beriukay Also, you're engaging in circular reasoning again. Science never disproved the virgin birth and demons. Science doesn't even deal with that. Science describe who the natural world NORMALLY works. Miracles, by its very definition, are events that BREAKS with the norm, and therefore are beyond the scope of science. Science ASSUMES that nature is all there is and everything is based on that assumption. That hardly proves that there is no God, and that miracles don't happen.
@beriukay Given the strength of the positive argument, and the lack of an consistent, alternative explanation that can account for all the historical evidence for the origin of the church, I have to conclude that those who still reject dr. Craig's argument, does it on the BELIEVE that he is wrong. Dr Craig delve into specifics, details. Ehrman raise vague philosophical objections without taking the details into account. He clearly lost, but you are welcome to believe (pun intended) otherwise.
@Hannodb1961 I haven't watched the whole thing, so I'll assume you're right that Craig won the debate. But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality, which I have good prior evidence that Craig isn't even trying to do. That is, after all, what being a master debater is all about.
@beriukay1) "But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality",and in that,you acknowledge what few atheists want to acknowledge:Atheism is a believe system.It is not merely to say we don't know if there is no God,it is to actively BELIEVE there is no God,and to immediately dismiss any evidence that might show otherwise.It is a believe in naturalism.Even though we have no scientific reason to believe so, many think we evolved from a prebiotic chemical soup
@beriukay 2) " But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality," - So all this talk about rationality and evidence which atheists insist on, is really just a charade: The average atheist is just as religiously committed to naturalism, to the point of believing absurd things without scientific proof, as 99% of all religious people. Evidence is not considered on its own merits, but on whether it is in harmony with naturalism.
@beriukay In fact, you engage in circular reasoning. Ehrman repeatedly assert that he PRESUPPOSE that nothing can count as evidence for the miraculous. He IGNORES the specifics that dr Craig raises, but rather argue that no matter what, THERE CANNOT BE evidence. This is not rational knowledge, it is a believe system. Then you turn around and and say: because there is no evidence you do not believe, and somehow this makes you more rational than religious people. Seriously, lol!
@beriukay "I think you are putting words into my mouth to score debate points." - Since this is the comment section on this video, I was assuming that you watched the debate, and you are defending Ehrman's point of view.
In the first segment (at 3.08), WLC states graciously that he will wait until after BE has presented his opening statements before showing where 'the fallacy lies' in his opponents arguement.
He then, after presenting his own opening arguements and demarcating the boundaries of the discussion as he sees them, disowns that concession by representing BE's views and going into attack dog mode.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
UHAPPY DEMON POSSESED PIGS JUMPED INTO A BODY OF WATER. - (Matthew 8:32)
Christians, if you believe in demon-pigs (as Craig does) please stop pretending that you're committed to logic. Craig is a joke. I know that's an ad-hominem. But you guys believe in demon-pigs. I know that's a straw-man. But you guys believe in demon-pigs.
Leave logic to people who have a personal relationship with REALITY!
Craig's opening comments: "well established facts" ..."most philosophers"... "relatively incontrovertible"..."agreed to by most scholars" ..."the vast majority"..."widely accepted by historians"..."remarkable number", "extraordinarily early sources"..."almost inexplicable"..."virtually universally acknowledged"... "most new testament critics concur"
@TheGreatestProject "we will never be able to know who he was since there is very little of what he puts forth"
Very valid point. I recently had a discussion with someone who also believes in the historicity of Jesus, and he did not accept many things I do. For example, he presented the possibility that there were *multiple* "itinerant preachers" and that the stories in the Gospels are simply a conflation on these different people. We will probably never "know".
On the other hand, you might not accept the evidence to support an historical Jesus, whereas I do. I provide you with "experts" you support *my* position, but you can choose not accept that. You might respond saying that there is too much confirmation bias in the evidence, for example, and I can choose not to accept that. Eventually we need to reach our own conclusion. Whether this is "knowledge" is a different debate.
@TheGreatestProject "how can one come up with their own argument considering that there is no such thing inherit knowledge?"
I've actually thought about that in the last few days. If I understand the question correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), I would say that we come up with an argument that best fits what we *accept as evidence*. I don't accept the claims of resurrection as evidence, because I have seen no evidence that resurrection is even possible, thus the evidence is invalid.
@TheGreatestProject "Out of curiosity (though I am no Christian Apologist), how can one come up with their own argument considering that there is no such thing inherit knowledge?"
"own argument" for what? In what context? Do you mean "inherent knowledge"?
The majority of these comments show such misinformation and baseless claims that arguing against them is pointless. the argument goes something like this:
i dont know anything about the study of the ressurrection
@leojasuos Nice comment. I'm a Christian and I'd like to put forth:
The evidence and data we have surrounding Jesus' resurrection includes the empty tomb, the appearances to the disciples, the testimony of women, the rapid spread of Christianity, the death of Jesus by crucifixion, the disciples change and their martyrdom, outside references such as Tacitus and Josephus, etc. All this data have an explanatory power, but the explanatory scope is where the contention lies with rival hypotheses.
@4IDHero Hi. I think the point here is what rival hypothesis could integrate all this facts and still be coherent and realistic. And i know none, hence the explanatory power.
@leojasuos The point is that the competing hypothesis must make rival hypotheses less plausible, the data must comport with the competing hypothesis, rather than the rival hypotheses. All hypotheses contradict one another, therefore one hypothesis forms the foundation as honest inductive inference of the data as its explanatory power. Rival hypotheses includes swoon theory of Jesus' resurrection, conspiracy theory, the body was stolen theory, the evil twin theory, etc.
@4IDHero "All hypotheses contradict one another, therefore one hypothesis forms the foundation as honest inductive inference of the data as its explanatory power. "
What a load of nonsense!!! You are simply throwing words together and pretending they sound intelligent. They do not! For starters induction only has value if you multiple occurrences. In other words, it makes generalizations based on individual events. That is by no means what we are doing ion this context.
@jimmo42 "They do not! For starters induction only has value if you multiple occurrences. In other words, it makes generalizations based on individual events. That is by no means what we are doing ion this context."
You are making the generalization that the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen based on the "individual events." It's generalization if you say induction only has value to multiple occurrences. And the words I use aren't even big at all, they have meaning, I suggest Webster.
@4IDHero "It's generalization if you say induction only has value to multiple occurrences."
Uh, no...It is the definition of induction. You take repeated occurrence of the *same* event and make a generalization about. You see the sun rise every day and make the inductive inference that it will rise again tomorrow. Inductive reasoning is invalid with only a single occurence.
@4IDHero "but the explanatory scope is where the contention lies with rival hypotheses. "
Uh, no....It's the plausibility of the resurrection that is the primary point of contention. You must fisrt demonstrate that magic is possible before we even consider it as a plausible explanation.
@jimmo42 "You must fisrt demonstrate that magic is possible before we even consider it as a plausible explanation. "
If you're objecting to the possibility of miracles, then it's your burden to show that the resurrection of Jesus is LESS plausible to whatever hypothesis you are advocating to the data we have. If you seriously think "magic" is a prerequisite to conducting history, then you can say we can't trust anything in history because magic isn't demonstrable.
@4IDHero "then it's your burden to show that the resurrection of Jesus is LESS plausible"
That is a logical fallacy called "shifting the burden". YOU make the positive claim that a resurrection of people possible. Ttherefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Until you provide evidence that resurrection is possible, than ANY naturalistic explanation MUST be more plausible. Possible explanations are ALWAYS more plausible than impossible explanations.
@jimmo42 "possible explanations are ALWAYS more plausible"
STILL still repeating the Hume Fallacy after youve been taught why its nonsense?
You cant consider the probability of an explanation of the facts IN ISOLATION, without taking into account the probability we'd have those facts if that was NOT the explanation!
If world news reported alien landings you dont just consider the improbability aliens would land, but the probability world news would have reported it, if they did NOT!
@relarerfhjk "STILL still repeating the Hume Fallacy after youve been taught why its nonsense?"
STILL demonstrating you have NO clue about what Hume said about miracles? Each time you rear your head you prove to use you either don't know what Hume said, or your are being intentionally deceitful by claiming something that is not true. I am NOT saying miracles are impossible, I am simply saying you fundies present no evidence. (other than mythology books)
@relarerfhjk "but the probability world news would have reported it, if they did NOT!"
Now you're getting it!!! With people rising from the dead and walking the streets of Jerusalem like described in the Matt 27:52, you would have dozens if not hundreds of people reporting it. No letters, no official accounts, no historians. You one person who is obviously biased. So, by your own example, it is pretty clear that it never happened.
@relarerfhjk what is your alternative to Hume fallacy? Bible is always true fallacy?
What is "fact is isolation"? Facts w/o context?
You seem to equate the fact people report something, with the certainty that something happened, as if people cannot be dishonest or make mistakes. (and then you use lack of evidence for mistake as evidence of no mistake)
@4IDHero "If you seriously think "magic" is a prerequisite"
Classic fundie dishonesty. YOU brought up the subject of magic with the resurrection. YOU are using magic as "prerequisite to conducting history". I have seen no evidence to support magical resurrections of dead corpses. As in any discipline from science to history to sociology, you do not assume what you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove that biological laws can be violated. You can't assume it from the start.
"the rapid spread of Christianity"? In what way? Just how is that evidence for the *resurrection*? $10 says you are going to simply regurgitate something WLC, Habermas, Evans or Licona says.
"the testimony of women"? Same question. In is only supportive of the empty tomb.
"their martyrdom"? You mean like flying airplanes into buildings?
"outside references" - Let me guess! You have never read Tacitus or Josephus, now have you?
@jimmo42 ""their martyrdom"? You mean like flying airplanes into buildings?
"outside references" - Let me guess! You have never read Tacitus or Josephus, now have you?"
If you're expecting an essay, then you should try a forum. Youtube is limited in character and only our two cents can be put in. Terrorists believes that they will be rewarded for killing innocent people, the disciples died in their beliefs in the risen Jesus. So, that objection is pointless.
@4IDHero "If you're expecting an essay, then you should try a forum."
No I am expecting honesty. IF you had actually read either Tacitus or Josephus you would know that their references to Jesus *could* fit into the 500 char limitation. So either you don't know what either said about Jesus or you are being intentionally deceptive.
@4IDHero "Terrorists believes that they will be rewarded for killing innocent people,"
Ah, nooo...Many Muslims believe that they if the die a martyr they will get certain rewards. In the case of BOTH muslim terrorists and Christians, they were willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.This willingness to sacrafice their lives is either evidence that BOTH are correct or neither. What the details of the beliefs are is irrelevant.
@jimmo42 "This willingness to sacrafice their lives is either evidence that BOTH are correct or neither. What the details of the beliefs are is irrelevant."
Such a repetitive stale-objection that's still circulating. Do Muslims believe that they "saw" their reward and that they have surviving data to support 72 virgins? No. They just believe. The disciples saw Jesus resurrected and attested to it. Objection failed.
@4IDHero "The disciples saw Jesus resurrected and attested to it."
Uh, no....You seem to not know bible history very well. At best we have second-hand reports by someone who was obviously motivated to make such claims. There is nothing in the Gospels or other sources which even says they were written by eye witnesses. Even Maathew and John report on things they could NOT have seen. We only have *claims* that the disciples saw anything.
Classic fundie handwaving. No, Muslims do NOT "have surviving data to support 72 virgins" because that is NOT in the Koran. It is propograted by ignorant Christians to support their own misquided beliefs. The Koran only says they will get rewards in heaven, nothing about any number of virgins. Further, they got their information *1st HAND'*. God revealed it directly to Mohammed who wrote it down, not multiple unnamed sources.
Further, the older surviving copies of the *complete* Koran are within 100 years after Mohammed wrote it, which is much younger than the older copies of even just a single book of the New Testament, so it is far less likely to have been corrupted that the NT. However, we know for a fact the NT was corrupted.
Your "Objection failed" is simply handwaiving, you provide no valid evidence.
@jimmo42 "However, we know for a fact the NT was corrupted."
Prove it.
"Your "Objection failed" is simply handwaiving, you provide no valid evidence."
My point is that the evidence/data/explanatory power and scope are already established, it's up to you, the researcher, to find if the evidence is valid or not, if not, refute with the same evidence. The fact that you ignore research into these issues by asking Youtubers for proof, cannot get more dishonest than that.
@4IDHero "My point is that the evidence/data/explanatory power and scope are already established"
Could be that's your, but your point is NOT "already established". Again, you must demonstrate miracles are possible. You have provide NO evidence to that effect.
"refute with the same evidence. "
Uh, your have provide no evidence. Thus there is no explanatory power. Therefore, explanatory scope is irrelevant because the explanation does NOT explain it.
@jimmo42 "Uh, your have provide no evidence... " Should read:
You have provided no evidence. Thus, there is no explanatory power.
As an addition. Provide evidence outside of the bible that miracles are possible, then we have a basis for discussion. Until then, there is no explanatory power.
@jimmo42 "Provide evidence outside of the bible that miracles are possible, then we have a basis for discussion. Until then, there is no explanatory power."
I thought you said you don't deny explanatory power? Tacitus' account DOES hold sway to the resurrection. If Tacitus says that Jesus resurrected, why is your criteria set up as to accept outside sources, and not the disciples' attestation? It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology. lol
"why is your criteria set up as to accept outside sources, and not the disciples' attestation?"
Because I don't see the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. You have provided no evidence for miracles. Therefore, until you do, it is reasonable to ignore any account that relies on them.
Further, there are a number of non-miraculous explanations.
@jimmo42 "Because I don't see the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. You have provided no evidence for miracles."
FYI, I'm Protestant; not Catholic. Miracles, even if it showed that something happened, such as a break in law of nature, a remission of cancer, a rare preventive event of tragedy, etc. Your infinite skeptical ilk will always say "it's science." Circular absurdity, to say miracles can't happen is a hefty epistemological position I doubt you have that kind of claim of absolute.
@4IDHero "I'm Protestant; not Catholic."..facepalm..
I don't see Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. Too bad you are not Catholic as they are very reasonable when it comes to science.
"a remission of cancer" and "a rare preventive event of tragedy" are not miracles and in both cases CAN be explained by "it's science." Show me *evidence* for "a break in law of nature" and then we can talk.
@jimmo42 "are not miracles and in both cases CAN be explained by "it's science." Show me *evidence* for "a break in law of nature" and then we can talk."
Why would a break in the law of nature need to be produced for you to accept as evidence? Yes, miracles CAN be explained by science, to say otherwise would be circular on at least one ground. It doesn't give us positive/definite knowledge of that induction of science.
@4IDHero "Yes, miracles CAN be explained by science, to say otherwise would be circular on at least one ground. "
You are making NO sense. Miracles are a violation of physical laws and thus CANNOT be "explained by science". That's the whole point. Praying for someone to get well and they do is NOT a miracle.
Just exactly how it is "circular on at least one ground."
"It doesn't give us positive/definite knowledge of that induction of science."
@4IDHero "to say miracles can't happen is a hefty epistemological position I doubt you have that kind of claim of absolute."
I have never said miracles can't happen. You are making things up. What "epistemological position"? Where am I claiming knowledge about anything in the bible or knowledge about god or knolwedge about anything we have been discussing?
@4IDHero "It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology."
Let me guess, you read an article by Craig or someone and found those two words so you decided to string them together to pretend you are intellectual. You obviously have an incorrect understanding of what meant by "skepticism" in this context. If you had even the basic understanding, you would see that is not what I am talking about.
@jimmo42 " The simplest is "god dun it". If YOU want to believe that god magically creates rainbows, you are free to do so. Just don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh at you"
I'll just sit here and laugh at your rediculous comments. Pure rhetoric in it's purest form, I'm not gonna even bother with the rest because they don't deal with history, but your own stupidity. Thanks for this entertainment.
@jimmo42 ""If Tacitus says that Jesus resurrected,
He doesn't, so its a moot point."
So lets just throw out anything that mentions a resurrection and keep the ones who don't, like Tacitus. Tacitus doesn't need to mention a resurrection, because he wasn't there. If you say that the explanatory power is a myth (which is false); then you have to show that Tacitus supports that explanatory power. Do you realize your method of historical studies is completely arbitrary? Cry about it...
@4IDHero "If you say that the explanatory power is a myth"
Are you saying that calling it a myth is "the explanatory power"? Or that saying it was completely fabricated could be "the explanatory power"? Or that it really happened is "the explanatory power"? So we have three different "explanatory powers"? Is that what you are trying to say?
@jimmo42 "Are you saying that calling it a myth is "the explanatory power"?"
No, an explanatory power forms the foundation of all inductive inference, Science is inductive. We have data comporting to the fossiles as from common decent, then the best explanatory power is evolution. One explanatory power with different competing hypotheses. That's all I meant. Myth is a competing hypothesis to other hypotheses for the data. Ex Pow is not some sort of inserted criteria.
@4IDHero "So lets just throw out anything that mentions a resurrection and keep the ones who don't"
I never said that, please pay attention. All the sources that claim a resurrection have an obvious religious bias plus we know have been intentionally altered. Thus we are compelled to seek an different explanation. In this case, since you have presented no evidence to support the claim a resurrection is even possible, thus we consider it implausible that a resurrection happened.
@jimmo42 "Thus we are compelled to seek an different explanation. In this case, since you have presented no evidence to support the claim a resurrection is even possible, thus we consider it implausible that a resurrection happened."
But that is a skeptical bias from your stand point, because you presuppose a resurrection is implausible therefore you seek a different explanation. Craig, as well as myself, don't start out assuming that it happened, if any of us has historical honesty.
@4IDHero "If you say that the explanatory power is a myth (which is false); then you have to show that Tacitus supports that explanatory power."
An explanation could be: Jesus was real (suppoted by Tacitus). The resurrection was a myth (Tacitus is not relevant). You seem to be operating under the misguided belief that these stories are either myth or true. That is a false dichotomy.
NOTE: I am NOT claiming the resurrection was a myth.
@jimmo42 "The resurrection was a myth (Tacitus is not relevant). You seem to be operating under the misguided belief that these stories are either myth or true. That is a false dichotomy."
The dichotomy is the most obvious explanation, and the "others." Tacitus' account holds sway to something happening in Judea, and these Christians broke out. Of course Tacitus is irrelevant, but his account must hold sway to "an explanatory power." Your methods is running in circles, making me dizzy.
@4IDHero "Do you realize your method of historical studies is completely arbitrary?"
...facepalm...Uh, no its not. Religious text have almost necessarily confirmation bias. Since we have no outside sources making the claim, there is no evidence supporting that the claim is even possible, and we do have plausible counter-explanations, we can conclude it is not likely the resurrection happened. Core components of the historical method, by no means arbitrary.
@jimmo42 "Religious text have almost necessarily confirmation bias. Since we have no outside sources making the claim"
True, but the problem is that these "religous" text we have are historical attestations, biographical comporting to the data to this day. Sorry, it's a completely arbitrary and bias way of conducting history on your part. Same methods apply to every ancient texts, we have outside sources that makes it historical very likely, you....skeptical bias all the way. lol
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Julius Africanus, Thallus, Lucian, The New Testament writings as first hand account. The NT writings are separate attested historical accounts and should be treated as such( there was no "New Testament" book in ancient Palestine.) Compilation of first hand accounts, extra biblical sources such as these ancient historians and political figures, ALL comport with the surviving evidence to conclude Jesus Resurrected.
@4IDHero "The NT writings are separate attested historical accounts and should be treated as such"
and they also have an obvious and very pronounced religious bias and should be treated as such.
"Compilation of first hand accounts" - For the gospels that is complete speculation. We don't even know who really wrote the gospels, so logically you cannot claim you know where they got their stories.
"to conclude Jesus Resurrected" - only if you presuppose miracles. We do not.
@jimmo42 "We don't even know who really wrote the gospels, so logically you cannot claim you know where they got their stories."
Bogus, we have ample evidence that the authors are who's name are attributed to the Gospels; with the exception of the Gospel of John because there is still controversies among scholars as to who wrote it. That's a poor assertion. Ok, presupposing no miracles; what's the explanation?
@4IDHero "Bogus, we have ample evidence that the authors are who's name are attributed to the Gospels; "
Then I would suggest you collect all of the evidence, write a paper about it and present it to a university that does New Testament research. You will become instantly famous because up until now, there is no evidence. So, how about providing some of that "ample evidence"?
@4IDHero "Ok, presupposing no miracles; what's the explanation?"
People emblellished stories. The New Testament contains forgeries. We know the stories are contradictory to each other and established historical facts. We know early christians lied to support their beliefs. We know modern Christians lie to support their beliefs. The simplest explanation is that the stories were written for their theological message and not as a history.
We know that early historians would add things to their stories that they assumed "must" have happened. So, if Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, then the disciples "must" have had the same experience. So the Gospel writers included such stories, despite never having heard such stories. The stories are just as credible as UFO stories.
@4IDHero and what if I did use that as my method, throw out all miracle claims and keep only natural claims as a historical method? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story? See, you act like you'll allow any other miraculous even to be historical, but you do not.
I am not only willing to deny all miracles, I'm willing to deny any and all history that isn't first hand.
@spiritualbully "? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story? See, you act like you'll allow any other miraculous even to be historical, but you do not."
History, needs to be conducted without any biases, implement impartial historical studies. Nobody is assuming miracles, or that the resurrection happened. You all assume that it is a myth therefore it's a biased stance in conducting history. If you deny history that isn't first hand, then throw out all of ancient history. LOL
@spiritualbully "and what if I did use that as my method, throw out all miracle claims and keep only natural claims as a historical method? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story?"
Then you have an invalid, circular historical criteria.
@4IDHero putting aside the fact you didn't answer my question, which is, what do I miss out on. Says who it's an invalid, circular criteria, and how is your method any different, any less circular
@4IDHero throwing something BECAUSE IT IS BIASED is to prevent bias, not all evidence are equal, and not all claims can be taken as evidence. Do you even know what bias means?
Yeah, I'm biased, if "bias for honesty, consistency, objectively, reality" is considered one.
@spiritualbully "throwing something BECAUSE IT IS BIASED is to prevent bias, not all evidence are equal, and not all claims can be taken as evidence. Do you even know what bias means?"
You have any sense in impartial historical studies? Throwing something out to begin with is itself a bias. I conclude YOU don't know what bias means.
@4IDHero Not all "throwing out" are equal, sometimes you have good reason to throw things out.
According to you, "bias for honesty, consistency, reality" is a bias, so yes, I am proudly biased by that definition.
Let me ask you, do you EVER dismiss accounts ? If so, why? How is your reason for dismissing something not biased? Oh wait, you never said bias is bad.
@spiritualbully Simply tossing account because of known biases is typical for historians, but this isn't a murder trial, so your choice of method is valid, as long as you are consistant. 4IDHero wants different sets of rules for his claims and thus demostrates an almost random method to selecting what is valid evidence and what not.
@spiritualbully "Let me ask you, do you EVER dismiss accounts ?"
I would bet money he will dimiss *anything* that supports the big bang, evolution, as well as anything that counters the claim of the magically resurrection of dead and decaying bodies. He is obviously biased and dishonest because he does not admit the bais.
@spiritualbully "answer my question. DO you or DO YOU NOT ever dismiss accounts?"
Of course, if they don't pass authentication through textual criticism, or through historical criterias, such as the 7 I posted early for jimmo42. And the Gospels are dismissed how?
@4IDHero "authentication through textual criticism" - gibberish. words you have simply thrown together. Exactly what kind of "textual criticism"?
"such as the 7 I posted early for jimmo42." - You mean the ones you incorrectly paraphrased from wikipedia?
"And the Gospels are dismissed how?" - I've said it *repeatedly*. You are obviously unwilling or unable to understand them. That is either willful ignorance or intentional deceit.
@4IDHero "Throwing something out to begin with is itself a bias"
Finally you got something right. We compared the biased material to unbiased sources and in this case find there are NO unbiased sources for the resurrection. We know for a fact, the bible contains forgeries. We know writers of the time embleshed stories likes the gospels to make them more amazing. "ALL comport with the surviving evidence to conclude" the gospels are NOT reliable sources of information.
@4IDHero "Let the evidence speak for itself, not hard at all."
Exactly! The evidence shows that miracles do not happen. The evidence shows these kinds of stories were embellished. The evidence shows that the new testament contains forgeries. The evidence shows that the early church intentionally threw out material simply because it supported a different doctrine. The evidence shows that the entire new testament was manipulated over the centuries. Conclusion: it is NOT a trustworthy source.
@jimmo42 "he evidence shows these kinds of stories were embellished. The evidence shows that the new testament contains forgeries. The evidence shows that the early church intentionally threw out material simply because it supported a different doctrine."
Professional historians like Michael Grant, Jodi Magnese and Bart Ehrman. Envangelical fundamentalists like Daniel Wallace and James White admit that most historians agree that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles. These claim to be written by Paul and are thus forgeries. There were several Gospels that were not included because they disagreed on church doctrine. (look them up!)
These are very common problems that NT scholars have been dealing with for centuries. Simply asking how these claims are backed-up and not addressing the specific issues means you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I would suggest something like Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" and Grant's "Greek and Roman Historians" for starters.
@4IDHero "It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology. lol"
...facepalm... It is not arbitrary, it is one of the core aspects of the scientific, as well as, historical method. You don't suggestion explanations for which you have no evidence. You have provided no evidence for miracles. Second, we DO have evidence that the "disciples' attestation" is biased. Therefore, it is again not arbitrary to look at it skeptically.
@jimmo42 "Second, we DO have evidence that the "disciples' attestation" is biased. Therefore, it is again not arbitrary to look at it skeptically. "
What is the evidence? How can a person attest to a biased event? Doesn't make sense. Your criteria IS arbitrary (double standard) You say the resurrection didn't happen because Tacitus didn't mention a resurrection? Looks like you need to find out who Tacitus is before applying a double standard to history.
@jimmo42 Therefore, the explanation of God as foundation to ALL inductive inference salvaging induction IS the simplest explanation, as to scientific theories after theories. Therefore, you don't understand Occam's Razor, for your vague conclusion of the scientific method and induction is in actuality contrary Occam's Razor.
@4IDHero "the explanation of God as foundation to ALL inductive inference salvaging induction IS the simplest explanation"
Absolutely. Just like rainbows and earhquakes and diseases and floods and lightning. The simplest is "god dun it". If YOU want to believe that god magically creates rainbows, you are free to do so. Just don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh at you.
@jimmo42 "1) obviously biased 2) stems from a time period where people frequently, if not usually, embellished such stories 3) We have proof of such embellishments in the bible..."
Two words: Prove it. Your refusal to accept a best explanatory power to the observable data is itself a skeptical bias that doesn't resolve anything but your own subjective conclusion. lol
@4IDHero "Your refusal to accept a best explanatory power"
Are you using "explanatory power" as a countable noun? You keep saying things like "a best explanatory power" or something is "the explanatory power", like they are something you can count.
@jimmo42 I conclude you don't know the principle of Occam's Razor. You don't show how scientific methodology salvages induction while staying true to Occam's Razor other than your assertion that Christians invoke God as another entity violates Occam's Razor while ignoring and without salvaging the problems adopting your view. lol
@4IDHero "You don't show how scientific methodology salvages induction while staying true to Occam's Razor"
Just what does Occam Razor have to do with induction?
The scientific method at its core is induction. You observe repeated events, then predict it will repeat. How is that NOT induction? Once you have these repeat occurance, you form an hypthothesis about the cause. That's that scientific method in a nutshell.
@4IDHero "Look up the "problem of induction." Induction, the very prinicple science is enslaved to. "
..facepalm...So by that you are saying induction is a *bad* thing, right? That is tantamount to saying you think the scientific method is a *bad* thing. So, since we can't use induction are using saying for everything that "god dun it"? That's what you're implying.
@jimmo42 not only that, but without extra-biblical accounts of the phenomena, there's not even any anomaly or history that needs explanation.
When we are asked to explain the "facts" about the resurrection , we are essentially asked to explain why somebody would write such a story if it wasn't true.
@spiritualbully "not only that, but without extra-biblical accounts of the phenomena, there's not even any anomaly or history that needs explanation."
Plenty of extra-biblical accounts supports Jesus' resurrection. Do u need every single one of them to mention the word "resurrection" for you to take it as history?
@4IDHero "The fact that you ignore research into these issues by asking Youtubers for proof, cannot get more dishonest than that".
..facepalm..You mean "research" by non-historians such as Craig, where the real historians like Ehrman and Carrier claim just the opposite? Talk about you "cannot get more dishonest".
Further, you are bneing dishonest and contradictory by you claim of asking for "proof", I never have. I simply want evidence. Your strawman is dishonest.
Theres not much point if I gave you the names myself. That be such a waste of time, since you'll just use the FALLACY AUTHORITY!! on me. Habermas however has the credential and authority to be making such claims, maybe you should call him out as being fallacious as well??
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
Look into the works of these 10 names I've provided, they would sometimes mention 'most scholars agree' in their books on topics that are shut cases. I'll give you one such example. Gary Habermas in his book touching on 'Jesus resurrection and contemporary critism' wrote "Virtually all scholars today agree that Jesus died by crucifixion and that his body was afterwards buried."Now, either Habermas is lying, and would become the laughing stock of his peers, or he's actually telling it as it is.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
I'll give you an example of the kind of error you are doing right now.
A: Most biologist agree that unicorns have blue horns
B: Roger is a unicorn
conclusion: Roger has a blue horn
You haven't proved that unicorns exist and even if they did it doesn't mean that they have blue horns just because a bunch of people said so. And you haven't actually shown that most biologist actually believe they do have blue horns. And 6 biologist isn't a majority of them.
Did I make it simple enough for you?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
Craig is wrong in saying the original disciples were willing to die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The fact is, there is no conclusive historical evidence of what happened to most of the disciples. The book of Acts mentions that James was killed by Herod but that's it. Other sources of information on what happened to the life of the disciples are 2nd and 3rd century documents, many of which have conflicting reports.
wlemusic 1 month ago
I cannot believe that William Craig's arguments are convincing to anyone. I mean has he never seen a Derren Brown episode? Or a magic show? Also this was written 70 to 120 years after he died. Also they could have just made it up, like so many people do. There have been mass sightings of UFO's and bigfoot and the lockness monster, so why is Jesus any more believable.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
Because the majority of reputable historians and scholars, whom are recognized as world's leading authorities in this field, have unanimously agreed with the facts craig have presented to support his explanation. Frankly, if you don't approach this subject with any agenda or bias, and just solely look at the facts using the historical texts that are availabe (including non-christian sources), the most rational explanation is that the crucifixion and resurrection really occurred.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 So you are actually saying that the best explanation for the Jesus story is that it is true and he rose from the grave and thousands of people rose from the grave too? Are you insane?
The is ridiculous, there is not historical evidence that the gospels were written by people that even knew Jesus and even if they had there is no reason to trust their claims because back then would believe anything, alot like now. Stop letting WLC do your thinking for you.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Where did I say thousands of people rose from the grave too?
Please don't twist my words... Yeah I believe the best explanation for Jesus story, is the resurrection as being the most probable conclusion. Oh and there is evidence the gospels were written by people Jesus knew... The 4 accounts read like biographies and include familiarity of contemporary culture, the land, the laws, the people, eyewitness testimony on events that can only come from people who lived during (cont)
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@barryddavis274
(CONT)
that time, as well as figures that was closely familiar with the Nazarene called Jesus. This is the general concensus between most scholars as well ( I can provide more names if you want) , so I'm not really sure what you mean when you say theres no proof the gospels were written by people that even knew Jesus...
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 Where did I say thousands of people rose from the grave too?
You are arguing that the bible is a hyper-accurate historical text. The bible says that thousands of people rose from their graves at the same time Jesus did, therefore you are arguing that thousands of people rose from their graves. Funny, you'd think the Romans would have written about that. And the eye witnesses claim is a joke.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Again, can you direct me as to where the bible says thousands of people rose from their graves at the same time Jesus did? First time I'm hearing this.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 Matthew 27:52-53
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
First, whoever “the holy ones” were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e‧gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69)
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan (CONT)The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@barryddavis274 "The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia."
Wow that is so much hand waving if I didn't know better I would think you are trying to hail a cab.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life the way you think, for on the third day they wrote that, Jesus became “the firstborn from the dead.”
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 Stop, its pointless. What you consider evidence is so broad that you should be accepting almost every religion on the planet and maybe most wacko beliefs like UFO's and 9/11 inside job conspiracies.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Man the only one thats abit strange here is you bro. You keep bringing up UFOs and 9/11 or santa?? And even science not existing 2000 years ago? Talk about tangents. Have you even directly given any evidence to support any of your claims? To be fair, all you've done so far is criticize and come up with some uninformed claims about the bible...
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 Yep, ignoring the substance of what points, good work. You are either being dishonest, what a surprise from an apologist or you are just stupid. I think we are done here. I draw the line at people willfully ignoring my arguments. Good day apologist. The only person you will convince is yourself.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Try to stay on topic next time you challenge someone else dude. You really do have a bad habit of attacking the person you're conversing with, rather then the conversation itself.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 "Urhm I actually gave you 6..."
Oh my bad, so 6 historians represents a majority of them? So what is there only ten historians who specialize in that era in the world with? Pointing out six doesn't prove your claim that a majority believe whatever.
"Heck I can list you 1000 names and you'd still ignore the evidence."
FALLACY, FALLACY, FALLACY, FUCKING FALLACY OF AUTHORITY!!!!, can I make it more clear that just because you have a 1000 or 1billion it doesn't make it true
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
So let me get this straight, if I could not produce any names for you, you'll just say, I got no legs to stand on, no proof, hence I'm wrong about my 'most authority figures agree with christ crucifixion did take place' as being fact.
Yet if I give you those names, you still say I'm wrong, since you accuse me of using fallacy of authority. Hmmm, bit of a catch twenty two innit? Guess Then i was right bout your strong worldview making you abit unreasonable...
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 Ok, first of all let me make clear that you are making two claims, each with their own true values. First claim is that the majority agree, which you haven't proven. Second claim is that the majority proves x, which is a fallacy from authority. It isn't hard.
If you cannot understand the most basic logic we have for argumentation then I fail to see this conversation going anywhere.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 "majority of reputable historians and scholars, whom are recognized as world's leading authorities in this field"
Argument from authority, and do you even have proof of this claim?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
While scholars and historians may differ on explanation of certain evidences, there are still evidences considered facts and regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars. including skeptics. Heres one such fact.
Jesus was killed by crucifixion.
Sources that agree:
Gary Robert Habermas: PH.D in history & philosophy of religion
James Tabor: PH.D in new testament & early christian literature
Gerd Ludemann: New testament scholar
Paul L Maeir, Michael Licona, John Crossan,etc
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 So four people is the majority of reputable historians and scholars, and like I said before he it still argument form authority.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Urhm I actually gave you 6....
Here's some more since you seem to be a bit picky
Robert Bowman, Darrell L. Bock, Darrell L. Bock, Paul Copan, Richard G. Swinburne, Nicholas Thomas Wright.
The thing is man, it all comes down most the time to a person's worldview. If you're set in believing there's no such thing as a god, for various personal reasons, then it doesn't really matter what evidence someone puts your way.Heck I can list you 1000 names and you'd still ignore the evidence.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
You'll just keep twisting the evidence to suit your views. And scoff+instantly disregard anything that threatens it. So instead of reasoning what the best explanation is, based on the evidence presented, an overly biased view from the beginning, won't even allow any room for resurrection as even a possibility, even though there have been much more books written by critical scholars and philosophers that support this, instead of the weaker explanation Ehrmans has presented.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 OK, lets take your claim that eyewitnesses accounts can be taken seriously. So that would mean that you believe in UFO's, alien abductions, and you also believe that Sathya Sai Baba is the reincarnated guru that can levitate, health the sick with his hands and bring people back from the dead? Well thousands in Indian say they sow him do it, and we can interview them today. The bible is even worse then those sources because they were writen 70 years after Jesus died.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan
Marks supposedly written earliest at 35 years after Jesus died, and the last of the 4 gospels was completed 70 years after he died.So it would still be valid enough time period. The pros are that they're early enough, they're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, there's continuity, there's proximity, there's verification of certain distinct points with archeology and other documents, and then theres inner logic. That's what pulls it together.
barryddavis274 2 weeks ago
@barryddavis274 So you ignored most of what I wrote, including my claim of fallacy which you haven't contested.
So lets just recap what you are actually saying.
You think that 2000 year old documents that was written 35 years after Jesus died, by eyewitnesses that lived before science existed claim that Jesus rose from the grave after death and violated the laws of the physics and that is a good case for god?
Are you fucking high? How does that prove anything?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@barryddavis274 I will have to repeat, If you believe eyewitnesses accounts can be taken that seriously that would mean that you believe in UFO's, bigfoot, leprechauns alien abductions, fairies and you also believe that Sathya Sai Baba is the reincarnated guru that can levitate, heal the sick with his hands and bring people back from the dead? Thousands of people claim he has done those things, they say the watch him do it.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
Before Craig can positively claim his 4 historical facts as facts and expect them to serve as support for his belief system or challenge non-believers to successfully dismiss them as such he needs to do one important thing. He needs to PROVE that human beings of the time period in question were incapable of lying, embellishment, or exaggeration. Till then these supposed historical "facts" are nothing of the sort! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support!!
TryTheRedPill 2 months ago
Atheists uphold their believe that there is no God - and it IS a believe - by disregarding inconvenient evidence. They simply assert that "it is not evidence" but make no serious attempt to provide an alternative explanation.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Right, it is the same kind of belief as believing that 2+2=4. Some people call that 'knowledge' or 'giving the proper weight to the evidence'. Gossip and fables are among the weakest evidence you can possibly get. Considering the omnipotence and omniscience that is generally ascribed to the Christian god, one would expect better.
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay Right, so according to you we cannot really know that Julius Ceaser really lived. dr Craig has given an excellent defense of the Bible, and all you can do is dismiss it as "fables", which it is clearly not. As Craig said in video 5: The Atheist "...needs not only to tear down all the evidence FOR the Resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favour of some naturalistic alternatives". The latter is never done, or its done very sloppy.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Well, we'd first have to look at all the different books about Caesar, and discount biased claims or claims that are obviously factually incorrect. If a book claimed that Caesar freed the Romans from the Carthaginians and parted the Mediterranean sea, one would hope that you would realize this is garbage.
I expect we would find warring factions that all agreed that Caesar existed. Not just a bunch of the same people. We would also find works written BY Caesar.
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay "Well, we'd first have to look at all the different books about Caesar, and discount biased claims or claims that are obviously factually incorrect" And that is exactly what dr Craig did. I could go over it again, but then again, dr Craig already explained all of it.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 But otherwise, no. It is not my job to invent stories for why this is a fable. Science is good enough: human females don't magically make babies; humans don't rise from the dead; demons don't exist and can't be cast out into pigs. The naturalistic alternative is that a bunch of self-interested priest made a bunch of crap up.
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay ", no. It is not my job to invent stories" Two blunders here:The word Rational comes from the word "Ratio" - to weight arguments against each other. We have a historical account with excellent explanatory power to explain the origin of the Christian church.In order to refute is, you need to come up with an alternative that has better explanatory power.This is how science works as well: You keep a theory until a better one comes along.After 2 centuries of criticism, we're still waiting
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 First I want to apologize for spamming you. I didn't notice I was talking to the same guy until I hit that YouTube wall that says you talk too much. Secondly, I think we're talking across each other a bit here. If you want to have a lengthier discussion in private to try and figure out the truth (about one another's position, as well as about the topic), that'd be cool. But I'm not terribly interested in throwing sound bytes back and forth. What say you?
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay 1) No apology needed. I have completely forgotten about this discussion, I see I posted only 6 days ago, but it feels longer. We could take this discussion elsewhere, but I must first ask the question, what do we hope to achieve by it? I have investigated the truth claims of my faith to the point where I can say I no longer believe, I know. I also know, from many discussions I already had, that people hardly ever change their minds based on an argument.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay 2) Regarding the Resurrection, if you don't find WLC convincing, I'm afraid I won't be able to do better. As I said, rational comes from the word ratio, to weigh arguments against each other. I have found many who ridiculed and belittled WLC, but I have never found someone who could actually refute him with the same level of detail and clear logic. In the end, what you want to believe remain your choice, and I only offer you the merits on which I accept my faith.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay Also, you're engaging in circular reasoning again. Science never disproved the virgin birth and demons. Science doesn't even deal with that. Science describe who the natural world NORMALLY works. Miracles, by its very definition, are events that BREAKS with the norm, and therefore are beyond the scope of science. Science ASSUMES that nature is all there is and everything is based on that assumption. That hardly proves that there is no God, and that miracles don't happen.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay Given the strength of the positive argument, and the lack of an consistent, alternative explanation that can account for all the historical evidence for the origin of the church, I have to conclude that those who still reject dr. Craig's argument, does it on the BELIEVE that he is wrong. Dr Craig delve into specifics, details. Ehrman raise vague philosophical objections without taking the details into account. He clearly lost, but you are welcome to believe (pun intended) otherwise.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 I haven't watched the whole thing, so I'll assume you're right that Craig won the debate. But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality, which I have good prior evidence that Craig isn't even trying to do. That is, after all, what being a master debater is all about.
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay1) "But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality",and in that,you acknowledge what few atheists want to acknowledge:Atheism is a believe system.It is not merely to say we don't know if there is no God,it is to actively BELIEVE there is no God,and to immediately dismiss any evidence that might show otherwise.It is a believe in naturalism.Even though we have no scientific reason to believe so, many think we evolved from a prebiotic chemical soup
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay 2) " But being a good talker has no bearing on whether you are accurately tracking reality," - So all this talk about rationality and evidence which atheists insist on, is really just a charade: The average atheist is just as religiously committed to naturalism, to the point of believing absurd things without scientific proof, as 99% of all religious people. Evidence is not considered on its own merits, but on whether it is in harmony with naturalism.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay In fact, you engage in circular reasoning. Ehrman repeatedly assert that he PRESUPPOSE that nothing can count as evidence for the miraculous. He IGNORES the specifics that dr Craig raises, but rather argue that no matter what, THERE CANNOT BE evidence. This is not rational knowledge, it is a believe system. Then you turn around and and say: because there is no evidence you do not believe, and somehow this makes you more rational than religious people. Seriously, lol!
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 I think you are putting words into my mouth to score debate points.
beriukay 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beriukay "I think you are putting words into my mouth to score debate points." - Since this is the comment section on this video, I was assuming that you watched the debate, and you are defending Ehrman's point of view.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
In the first segment (at 3.08), WLC states graciously that he will wait until after BE has presented his opening statements before showing where 'the fallacy lies' in his opponents arguement.
He then, after presenting his own opening arguements and demarcating the boundaries of the discussion as he sees them, disowns that concession by representing BE's views and going into attack dog mode.
AllyWheels 3 months ago
unfortunately William Lane Craig is giving philosophy a bad name as he tries to rationalize the irrational
ogilby5 4 months ago in playlist RESURRECTION DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
UHAPPY DEMON POSSESED PIGS JUMPED INTO A BODY OF WATER. - (Matthew 8:32)
Christians, if you believe in demon-pigs (as Craig does) please stop pretending that you're committed to logic. Craig is a joke. I know that's an ad-hominem. But you guys believe in demon-pigs. I know that's a straw-man. But you guys believe in demon-pigs.
Leave logic to people who have a personal relationship with REALITY!
(Oink, oink!)
HellRehab 5 months ago
Craig's opening comments: "well established facts" ..."most philosophers"... "relatively incontrovertible"..."agreed to by most scholars" ..."the vast majority"..."widely accepted by historians"..."remarkable number", "extraordinarily early sources"..."almost inexplicable"..."virtually universally acknowledged"... "most new testament critics concur"
Craig is on his game. lol
HellRehab 6 months ago
@HellRehab "Craig is on his game. lol"
Good to see that I am not the only one who catches that kind of thing.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42
I came upon the exalted William Lane Craig a few weeks ago. He's an endless source of unintentional comedy.
HellRehab 5 months ago
@TheGreatestProject "people adopt arguments out of a priori bias sometimes."
Definitely. Like the people who assume that the bible is correct by default, just as others assume that the bible is incorrect by default.
jimmo42 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreatestProject "we will never be able to know who he was since there is very little of what he puts forth"
Very valid point. I recently had a discussion with someone who also believes in the historicity of Jesus, and he did not accept many things I do. For example, he presented the possibility that there were *multiple* "itinerant preachers" and that the stories in the Gospels are simply a conflation on these different people. We will probably never "know".
jimmo42 6 months ago
@TheGreatestProject "inherit knowledge"-cont.
On the other hand, you might not accept the evidence to support an historical Jesus, whereas I do. I provide you with "experts" you support *my* position, but you can choose not accept that. You might respond saying that there is too much confirmation bias in the evidence, for example, and I can choose not to accept that. Eventually we need to reach our own conclusion. Whether this is "knowledge" is a different debate.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@TheGreatestProject "how can one come up with their own argument considering that there is no such thing inherit knowledge?"
I've actually thought about that in the last few days. If I understand the question correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), I would say that we come up with an argument that best fits what we *accept as evidence*. I don't accept the claims of resurrection as evidence, because I have seen no evidence that resurrection is even possible, thus the evidence is invalid.
jimmo42 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreatestProject "Out of curiosity (though I am no Christian Apologist), how can one come up with their own argument considering that there is no such thing inherit knowledge?"
"own argument" for what? In what context? Do you mean "inherent knowledge"?
jimmo42 6 months ago
The majority of these comments show such misinformation and baseless claims that arguing against them is pointless. the argument goes something like this:
i dont know anything about the study of the ressurrection
i dont like the idea of the ressurrection
Therefore, the ressurrection is surely false
Read first and then talk about the subject.
leojasuos 6 months ago
@leojasuos Nice comment. I'm a Christian and I'd like to put forth:
The evidence and data we have surrounding Jesus' resurrection includes the empty tomb, the appearances to the disciples, the testimony of women, the rapid spread of Christianity, the death of Jesus by crucifixion, the disciples change and their martyrdom, outside references such as Tacitus and Josephus, etc. All this data have an explanatory power, but the explanatory scope is where the contention lies with rival hypotheses.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero Hi. I think the point here is what rival hypothesis could integrate all this facts and still be coherent and realistic. And i know none, hence the explanatory power.
leojasuos 6 months ago
@leojasuos The point is that the competing hypothesis must make rival hypotheses less plausible, the data must comport with the competing hypothesis, rather than the rival hypotheses. All hypotheses contradict one another, therefore one hypothesis forms the foundation as honest inductive inference of the data as its explanatory power. Rival hypotheses includes swoon theory of Jesus' resurrection, conspiracy theory, the body was stolen theory, the evil twin theory, etc.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "The point is that the competing hypothesis must make rival hypotheses less plausible"
Don't know much about historiography, now do you? The *plausiblity* of hypothesis is independent of competing hypothesese.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero "All hypotheses contradict one another, therefore one hypothesis forms the foundation as honest inductive inference of the data as its explanatory power. "
What a load of nonsense!!! You are simply throwing words together and pretending they sound intelligent. They do not! For starters induction only has value if you multiple occurrences. In other words, it makes generalizations based on individual events. That is by no means what we are doing ion this context.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "They do not! For starters induction only has value if you multiple occurrences. In other words, it makes generalizations based on individual events. That is by no means what we are doing ion this context."
You are making the generalization that the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen based on the "individual events." It's generalization if you say induction only has value to multiple occurrences. And the words I use aren't even big at all, they have meaning, I suggest Webster.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "It's generalization if you say induction only has value to multiple occurrences."
Uh, no...It is the definition of induction. You take repeated occurrence of the *same* event and make a generalization about. You see the sun rise every day and make the inductive inference that it will rise again tomorrow. Inductive reasoning is invalid with only a single occurence.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero "but the explanatory scope is where the contention lies with rival hypotheses. "
Uh, no....It's the plausibility of the resurrection that is the primary point of contention. You must fisrt demonstrate that magic is possible before we even consider it as a plausible explanation.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "You must fisrt demonstrate that magic is possible before we even consider it as a plausible explanation. "
If you're objecting to the possibility of miracles, then it's your burden to show that the resurrection of Jesus is LESS plausible to whatever hypothesis you are advocating to the data we have. If you seriously think "magic" is a prerequisite to conducting history, then you can say we can't trust anything in history because magic isn't demonstrable.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "then it's your burden to show that the resurrection of Jesus is LESS plausible"
That is a logical fallacy called "shifting the burden". YOU make the positive claim that a resurrection of people possible. Ttherefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Until you provide evidence that resurrection is possible, than ANY naturalistic explanation MUST be more plausible. Possible explanations are ALWAYS more plausible than impossible explanations.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "possible explanations are ALWAYS more plausible"
STILL still repeating the Hume Fallacy after youve been taught why its nonsense?
You cant consider the probability of an explanation of the facts IN ISOLATION, without taking into account the probability we'd have those facts if that was NOT the explanation!
If world news reported alien landings you dont just consider the improbability aliens would land, but the probability world news would have reported it, if they did NOT!
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk "STILL still repeating the Hume Fallacy after youve been taught why its nonsense?"
STILL demonstrating you have NO clue about what Hume said about miracles? Each time you rear your head you prove to use you either don't know what Hume said, or your are being intentionally deceitful by claiming something that is not true. I am NOT saying miracles are impossible, I am simply saying you fundies present no evidence. (other than mythology books)
jimmo42 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk "but the probability world news would have reported it, if they did NOT!"
Now you're getting it!!! With people rising from the dead and walking the streets of Jerusalem like described in the Matt 27:52, you would have dozens if not hundreds of people reporting it. No letters, no official accounts, no historians. You one person who is obviously biased. So, by your own example, it is pretty clear that it never happened.
jimmo42 3 months ago
@jimmo42 "You one person who is obviously biased"
Should be: You have just one single person who is obviously biased making this claim.
jimmo42 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk what is your alternative to Hume fallacy? Bible is always true fallacy?
What is "fact is isolation"? Facts w/o context?
You seem to equate the fact people report something, with the certainty that something happened, as if people cannot be dishonest or make mistakes. (and then you use lack of evidence for mistake as evidence of no mistake)
spiritualbully 3 months ago
@4IDHero "If you seriously think "magic" is a prerequisite"
Classic fundie dishonesty. YOU brought up the subject of magic with the resurrection. YOU are using magic as "prerequisite to conducting history". I have seen no evidence to support magical resurrections of dead corpses. As in any discipline from science to history to sociology, you do not assume what you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove that biological laws can be violated. You can't assume it from the start.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero
"the rapid spread of Christianity"? In what way? Just how is that evidence for the *resurrection*? $10 says you are going to simply regurgitate something WLC, Habermas, Evans or Licona says.
"the testimony of women"? Same question. In is only supportive of the empty tomb.
"their martyrdom"? You mean like flying airplanes into buildings?
"outside references" - Let me guess! You have never read Tacitus or Josephus, now have you?
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 ""their martyrdom"? You mean like flying airplanes into buildings?
"outside references" - Let me guess! You have never read Tacitus or Josephus, now have you?"
If you're expecting an essay, then you should try a forum. Youtube is limited in character and only our two cents can be put in. Terrorists believes that they will be rewarded for killing innocent people, the disciples died in their beliefs in the risen Jesus. So, that objection is pointless.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "If you're expecting an essay, then you should try a forum."
No I am expecting honesty. IF you had actually read either Tacitus or Josephus you would know that their references to Jesus *could* fit into the 500 char limitation. So either you don't know what either said about Jesus or you are being intentionally deceptive.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero "Terrorists believes that they will be rewarded for killing innocent people,"
Ah, nooo...Many Muslims believe that they if the die a martyr they will get certain rewards. In the case of BOTH muslim terrorists and Christians, they were willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.This willingness to sacrafice their lives is either evidence that BOTH are correct or neither. What the details of the beliefs are is irrelevant.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "This willingness to sacrafice their lives is either evidence that BOTH are correct or neither. What the details of the beliefs are is irrelevant."
Such a repetitive stale-objection that's still circulating. Do Muslims believe that they "saw" their reward and that they have surviving data to support 72 virgins? No. They just believe. The disciples saw Jesus resurrected and attested to it. Objection failed.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "The disciples saw Jesus resurrected and attested to it."
Uh, no....You seem to not know bible history very well. At best we have second-hand reports by someone who was obviously motivated to make such claims. There is nothing in the Gospels or other sources which even says they were written by eye witnesses. Even Maathew and John report on things they could NOT have seen. We only have *claims* that the disciples saw anything.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero "Objection failed."
Classic fundie handwaving. No, Muslims do NOT "have surviving data to support 72 virgins" because that is NOT in the Koran. It is propograted by ignorant Christians to support their own misquided beliefs. The Koran only says they will get rewards in heaven, nothing about any number of virgins. Further, they got their information *1st HAND'*. God revealed it directly to Mohammed who wrote it down, not multiple unnamed sources.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@4IDHero "Objection failed." cont.
Further, the older surviving copies of the *complete* Koran are within 100 years after Mohammed wrote it, which is much younger than the older copies of even just a single book of the New Testament, so it is far less likely to have been corrupted that the NT. However, we know for a fact the NT was corrupted.
Your "Objection failed" is simply handwaiving, you provide no valid evidence.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "However, we know for a fact the NT was corrupted."
Prove it.
"Your "Objection failed" is simply handwaiving, you provide no valid evidence."
My point is that the evidence/data/explanatory power and scope are already established, it's up to you, the researcher, to find if the evidence is valid or not, if not, refute with the same evidence. The fact that you ignore research into these issues by asking Youtubers for proof, cannot get more dishonest than that.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "My point is that the evidence/data/explanatory power and scope are already established"
Could be that's your, but your point is NOT "already established". Again, you must demonstrate miracles are possible. You have provide NO evidence to that effect.
"refute with the same evidence. "
Uh, your have provide no evidence. Thus there is no explanatory power. Therefore, explanatory scope is irrelevant because the explanation does NOT explain it.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "Uh, your have provide no evidence... " Should read:
You have provided no evidence. Thus, there is no explanatory power.
As an addition. Provide evidence outside of the bible that miracles are possible, then we have a basis for discussion. Until then, there is no explanatory power.
jimmo42 6 months ago
@jimmo42 "Provide evidence outside of the bible that miracles are possible, then we have a basis for discussion. Until then, there is no explanatory power."
I thought you said you don't deny explanatory power? Tacitus' account DOES hold sway to the resurrection. If Tacitus says that Jesus resurrected, why is your criteria set up as to accept outside sources, and not the disciples' attestation? It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology. lol
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "If Tacitus says that Jesus resurrected,
He doesn't, so its a moot point.
"why is your criteria set up as to accept outside sources, and not the disciples' attestation?"
Because I don't see the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. You have provided no evidence for miracles. Therefore, until you do, it is reasonable to ignore any account that relies on them.
Further, there are a number of non-miraculous explanations.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Because I don't see the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. You have provided no evidence for miracles."
FYI, I'm Protestant; not Catholic. Miracles, even if it showed that something happened, such as a break in law of nature, a remission of cancer, a rare preventive event of tragedy, etc. Your infinite skeptical ilk will always say "it's science." Circular absurdity, to say miracles can't happen is a hefty epistemological position I doubt you have that kind of claim of absolute.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "I'm Protestant; not Catholic."..facepalm..
I don't see Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. Too bad you are not Catholic as they are very reasonable when it comes to science.
"a remission of cancer" and "a rare preventive event of tragedy" are not miracles and in both cases CAN be explained by "it's science." Show me *evidence* for "a break in law of nature" and then we can talk.
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 "are not miracles and in both cases CAN be explained by "it's science." Show me *evidence* for "a break in law of nature" and then we can talk."
Why would a break in the law of nature need to be produced for you to accept as evidence? Yes, miracles CAN be explained by science, to say otherwise would be circular on at least one ground. It doesn't give us positive/definite knowledge of that induction of science.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "Yes, miracles CAN be explained by science, to say otherwise would be circular on at least one ground. "
You are making NO sense. Miracles are a violation of physical laws and thus CANNOT be "explained by science". That's the whole point. Praying for someone to get well and they do is NOT a miracle.
Just exactly how it is "circular on at least one ground."
"It doesn't give us positive/definite knowledge of that induction of science."
WTF is that supposed to mean?
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero "to say miracles can't happen is a hefty epistemological position I doubt you have that kind of claim of absolute."
I have never said miracles can't happen. You are making things up. What "epistemological position"? Where am I claiming knowledge about anything in the bible or knowledge about god or knolwedge about anything we have been discussing?
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology."
Let me guess, you read an article by Craig or someone and found those two words so you decided to string them together to pretend you are intellectual. You obviously have an incorrect understanding of what meant by "skepticism" in this context. If you had even the basic understanding, you would see that is not what I am talking about.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 " The simplest is "god dun it". If YOU want to believe that god magically creates rainbows, you are free to do so. Just don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh at you"
I'll just sit here and laugh at your rediculous comments. Pure rhetoric in it's purest form, I'm not gonna even bother with the rest because they don't deal with history, but your own stupidity. Thanks for this entertainment.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@jimmo42 ""If Tacitus says that Jesus resurrected,
He doesn't, so its a moot point."
So lets just throw out anything that mentions a resurrection and keep the ones who don't, like Tacitus. Tacitus doesn't need to mention a resurrection, because he wasn't there. If you say that the explanatory power is a myth (which is false); then you have to show that Tacitus supports that explanatory power. Do you realize your method of historical studies is completely arbitrary? Cry about it...
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "If you say that the explanatory power is a myth"
Are you saying that calling it a myth is "the explanatory power"? Or that saying it was completely fabricated could be "the explanatory power"? Or that it really happened is "the explanatory power"? So we have three different "explanatory powers"? Is that what you are trying to say?
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Are you saying that calling it a myth is "the explanatory power"?"
No, an explanatory power forms the foundation of all inductive inference, Science is inductive. We have data comporting to the fossiles as from common decent, then the best explanatory power is evolution. One explanatory power with different competing hypotheses. That's all I meant. Myth is a competing hypothesis to other hypotheses for the data. Ex Pow is not some sort of inserted criteria.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "So lets just throw out anything that mentions a resurrection and keep the ones who don't"
I never said that, please pay attention. All the sources that claim a resurrection have an obvious religious bias plus we know have been intentionally altered. Thus we are compelled to seek an different explanation. In this case, since you have presented no evidence to support the claim a resurrection is even possible, thus we consider it implausible that a resurrection happened.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Thus we are compelled to seek an different explanation. In this case, since you have presented no evidence to support the claim a resurrection is even possible, thus we consider it implausible that a resurrection happened."
But that is a skeptical bias from your stand point, because you presuppose a resurrection is implausible therefore you seek a different explanation. Craig, as well as myself, don't start out assuming that it happened, if any of us has historical honesty.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "If you say that the explanatory power is a myth (which is false); then you have to show that Tacitus supports that explanatory power."
An explanation could be: Jesus was real (suppoted by Tacitus). The resurrection was a myth (Tacitus is not relevant). You seem to be operating under the misguided belief that these stories are either myth or true. That is a false dichotomy.
NOTE: I am NOT claiming the resurrection was a myth.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "The resurrection was a myth (Tacitus is not relevant). You seem to be operating under the misguided belief that these stories are either myth or true. That is a false dichotomy."
The dichotomy is the most obvious explanation, and the "others." Tacitus' account holds sway to something happening in Judea, and these Christians broke out. Of course Tacitus is irrelevant, but his account must hold sway to "an explanatory power." Your methods is running in circles, making me dizzy.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "Do you realize your method of historical studies is completely arbitrary?"
...facepalm...Uh, no its not. Religious text have almost necessarily confirmation bias. Since we have no outside sources making the claim, there is no evidence supporting that the claim is even possible, and we do have plausible counter-explanations, we can conclude it is not likely the resurrection happened. Core components of the historical method, by no means arbitrary.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Religious text have almost necessarily confirmation bias. Since we have no outside sources making the claim"
True, but the problem is that these "religous" text we have are historical attestations, biographical comporting to the data to this day. Sorry, it's a completely arbitrary and bias way of conducting history on your part. Same methods apply to every ancient texts, we have outside sources that makes it historical very likely, you....skeptical bias all the way. lol
4IDHero 5 months ago
@jimmo42 Other references and sources...
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Julius Africanus, Thallus, Lucian, The New Testament writings as first hand account. The NT writings are separate attested historical accounts and should be treated as such( there was no "New Testament" book in ancient Palestine.) Compilation of first hand accounts, extra biblical sources such as these ancient historians and political figures, ALL comport with the surviving evidence to conclude Jesus Resurrected.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "The NT writings are separate attested historical accounts and should be treated as such"
and they also have an obvious and very pronounced religious bias and should be treated as such.
"Compilation of first hand accounts" - For the gospels that is complete speculation. We don't even know who really wrote the gospels, so logically you cannot claim you know where they got their stories.
"to conclude Jesus Resurrected" - only if you presuppose miracles. We do not.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "We don't even know who really wrote the gospels, so logically you cannot claim you know where they got their stories."
Bogus, we have ample evidence that the authors are who's name are attributed to the Gospels; with the exception of the Gospel of John because there is still controversies among scholars as to who wrote it. That's a poor assertion. Ok, presupposing no miracles; what's the explanation?
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero Ok, let's start with Matthew, what is the ample evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew? Thanks.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero "Bogus, we have ample evidence that the authors are who's name are attributed to the Gospels; "
Then I would suggest you collect all of the evidence, write a paper about it and present it to a university that does New Testament research. You will become instantly famous because up until now, there is no evidence. So, how about providing some of that "ample evidence"?
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "Ok, presupposing no miracles; what's the explanation?"
People emblellished stories. The New Testament contains forgeries. We know the stories are contradictory to each other and established historical facts. We know early christians lied to support their beliefs. We know modern Christians lie to support their beliefs. The simplest explanation is that the stories were written for their theological message and not as a history.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "what's the explanation?"-cont.
We know that early historians would add things to their stories that they assumed "must" have happened. So, if Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, then the disciples "must" have had the same experience. So the Gospel writers included such stories, despite never having heard such stories. The stories are just as credible as UFO stories.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero and what if I did use that as my method, throw out all miracle claims and keep only natural claims as a historical method? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story? See, you act like you'll allow any other miraculous even to be historical, but you do not.
I am not only willing to deny all miracles, I'm willing to deny any and all history that isn't first hand.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story? See, you act like you'll allow any other miraculous even to be historical, but you do not."
History, needs to be conducted without any biases, implement impartial historical studies. Nobody is assuming miracles, or that the resurrection happened. You all assume that it is a myth therefore it's a biased stance in conducting history. If you deny history that isn't first hand, then throw out all of ancient history. LOL
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "History, needs to be conducted without any biases, implement impartial historical studies. "
If that's the case, you should dismiss disciples as biased.
Yeah, what do I lose by denying all of ancient history?
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "If that's the case, you should dismiss disciples as biased."
Thanks for making my point for me. They're attestations are genuine. Nuff said. thanks again. lol
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero thanks for showing your dishonesty and ignorance
spiritualbully 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully "thanks for showing your dishonesty and ignorance"
No dishonestly is looking at youtube comments to verify historical studies. Have ever used a yahoo or google search engine? lol
4IDHero 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero I don't look at youtube comments for history, thanks for lying again.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "and what if I did use that as my method, throw out all miracle claims and keep only natural claims as a historical method? What do I miss out on other than the resurrection story?"
Then you have an invalid, circular historical criteria.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero putting aside the fact you didn't answer my question, which is, what do I miss out on. Says who it's an invalid, circular criteria, and how is your method any different, any less circular
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "Says who it's an invalid, circular criteria, and how is your method any different, any less circular"
Throwing something out is a bias and invalid starting point. Let the evidence speak for itself, not hard at all.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero throwing something BECAUSE IT IS BIASED is to prevent bias, not all evidence are equal, and not all claims can be taken as evidence. Do you even know what bias means?
Yeah, I'm biased, if "bias for honesty, consistency, objectively, reality" is considered one.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "throwing something BECAUSE IT IS BIASED is to prevent bias, not all evidence are equal, and not all claims can be taken as evidence. Do you even know what bias means?"
You have any sense in impartial historical studies? Throwing something out to begin with is itself a bias. I conclude YOU don't know what bias means.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero Not all "throwing out" are equal, sometimes you have good reason to throw things out.
According to you, "bias for honesty, consistency, reality" is a bias, so yes, I am proudly biased by that definition.
Let me ask you, do you EVER dismiss accounts ? If so, why? How is your reason for dismissing something not biased? Oh wait, you never said bias is bad.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully Simply tossing account because of known biases is typical for historians, but this isn't a murder trial, so your choice of method is valid, as long as you are consistant. 4IDHero wants different sets of rules for his claims and thus demostrates an almost random method to selecting what is valid evidence and what not.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "Let me ask you, do you EVER dismiss accounts ?"
I would bet money he will dimiss *anything* that supports the big bang, evolution, as well as anything that counters the claim of the magically resurrection of dead and decaying bodies. He is obviously biased and dishonest because he does not admit the bais.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "According to you, "bias for honesty, consistency, reality" is a bias, so yes, I am proudly biased by that definition."
How is throwing out miracle claims as historical bias for honesty? If you ask me (or anyone for that matter), that's dishonesty.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "How is throwing out miracle claims as historical bias for honesty?"
That's not what I said, your turn to answer my question.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
@spiritualbully "If so, why? How is your reason for dismissing something not biased? Oh wait, you never said bias is bad. "
And this is different from "impartial historical studying" how?
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero answer my question. DO you or DO YOU NOT ever dismiss accounts?
spiritualbully 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully "answer my question. DO you or DO YOU NOT ever dismiss accounts?"
Of course, if they don't pass authentication through textual criticism, or through historical criterias, such as the 7 I posted early for jimmo42. And the Gospels are dismissed how?
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "authentication through textual criticism" - gibberish. words you have simply thrown together. Exactly what kind of "textual criticism"?
"such as the 7 I posted early for jimmo42." - You mean the ones you incorrectly paraphrased from wikipedia?
"And the Gospels are dismissed how?" - I've said it *repeatedly*. You are obviously unwilling or unable to understand them. That is either willful ignorance or intentional deceit.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "Throwing something out to begin with is itself a bias"
Finally you got something right. We compared the biased material to unbiased sources and in this case find there are NO unbiased sources for the resurrection. We know for a fact, the bible contains forgeries. We know writers of the time embleshed stories likes the gospels to make them more amazing. "ALL comport with the surviving evidence to conclude" the gospels are NOT reliable sources of information.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "Let the evidence speak for itself, not hard at all."
Exactly! The evidence shows that miracles do not happen. The evidence shows these kinds of stories were embellished. The evidence shows that the new testament contains forgeries. The evidence shows that the early church intentionally threw out material simply because it supported a different doctrine. The evidence shows that the entire new testament was manipulated over the centuries. Conclusion: it is NOT a trustworthy source.
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 "he evidence shows these kinds of stories were embellished. The evidence shows that the new testament contains forgeries. The evidence shows that the early church intentionally threw out material simply because it supported a different doctrine."
And you back these claims up how?
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "And you back these claims up how?"
Professional historians like Michael Grant, Jodi Magnese and Bart Ehrman. Envangelical fundamentalists like Daniel Wallace and James White admit that most historians agree that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles. These claim to be written by Paul and are thus forgeries. There were several Gospels that were not included because they disagreed on church doctrine. (look them up!)
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "And you back these claims up how?"
These are very common problems that NT scholars have been dealing with for centuries. Simply asking how these claims are backed-up and not addressing the specific issues means you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I would suggest something like Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" and Grant's "Greek and Roman Historians" for starters.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "The evidence shows that the early church intentionally threw out material simply because it supported a different doctrine."
OUCH, but remember jimmo, bias is OK as long as you're supporting the Christian belief accepted today.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully "but remember jimmo, bias is OK as long as you're supporting the Christian belief accepted today. "
Ooops. Sorry!!! I forgot about that!
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully "putting aside the fact you didn't answer my question,"
Are you actually expecting him to answer question directory without all of his gibberish? Man, are you naive! ;-)
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "It is a completely arbitrary criteria, subjective, and it rests on skeptical epistemology. lol"
...facepalm... It is not arbitrary, it is one of the core aspects of the scientific, as well as, historical method. You don't suggestion explanations for which you have no evidence. You have provided no evidence for miracles. Second, we DO have evidence that the "disciples' attestation" is biased. Therefore, it is again not arbitrary to look at it skeptically.
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 "It is not arbitrary, it is one of the core aspects of the scientific, as well as, historical method"
Talking about history here, different field from science. lol
4IDHero 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Second, we DO have evidence that the "disciples' attestation" is biased. Therefore, it is again not arbitrary to look at it skeptically. "
What is the evidence? How can a person attest to a biased event? Doesn't make sense. Your criteria IS arbitrary (double standard) You say the resurrection didn't happen because Tacitus didn't mention a resurrection? Looks like you need to find out who Tacitus is before applying a double standard to history.
4IDHero 5 months ago
@jimmo42 Therefore, the explanation of God as foundation to ALL inductive inference salvaging induction IS the simplest explanation, as to scientific theories after theories. Therefore, you don't understand Occam's Razor, for your vague conclusion of the scientific method and induction is in actuality contrary Occam's Razor.
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "the explanation of God as foundation to ALL inductive inference salvaging induction IS the simplest explanation"
Absolutely. Just like rainbows and earhquakes and diseases and floods and lightning. The simplest is "god dun it". If YOU want to believe that god magically creates rainbows, you are free to do so. Just don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh at you.
jimmo42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 "1) obviously biased 2) stems from a time period where people frequently, if not usually, embellished such stories 3) We have proof of such embellishments in the bible..."
Two words: Prove it. Your refusal to accept a best explanatory power to the observable data is itself a skeptical bias that doesn't resolve anything but your own subjective conclusion. lol
4IDHero 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero "Your refusal to accept a best explanatory power"
Are you using "explanatory power" as a countable noun? You keep saying things like "a best explanatory power" or something is "the explanatory power", like they are something you can count.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 I conclude you don't know the principle of Occam's Razor. You don't show how scientific methodology salvages induction while staying true to Occam's Razor other than your assertion that Christians invoke God as another entity violates Occam's Razor while ignoring and without salvaging the problems adopting your view. lol
4IDHero 6 months ago
@4IDHero "You don't show how scientific methodology salvages induction while staying true to Occam's Razor"
Just what does Occam Razor have to do with induction?
The scientific method at its core is induction. You observe repeated events, then predict it will repeat. How is that NOT induction? Once you have these repeat occurance, you form an hypthothesis about the cause. That's that scientific method in a nutshell.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@4IDHero "while ignoring and without salvaging the problems adopting your view. "
Well, professor, what exactly are those problems?
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 "Well, professor, what exactly are those problems?"
Look up the "problem of induction." Induction, the very prinicple science is enslaved to.
4IDHero 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero "Look up the "problem of induction." Induction, the very prinicple science is enslaved to. "
..facepalm...So by that you are saying induction is a *bad* thing, right? That is tantamount to saying you think the scientific method is a *bad* thing. So, since we can't use induction are using saying for everything that "god dun it"? That's what you're implying.
jimmo42 5 months ago
@jimmo42 not only that, but without extra-biblical accounts of the phenomena, there's not even any anomaly or history that needs explanation.
When we are asked to explain the "facts" about the resurrection , we are essentially asked to explain why somebody would write such a story if it wasn't true.
spiritualbully 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully "not only that, but without extra-biblical accounts of the phenomena, there's not even any anomaly or history that needs explanation."
Plenty of extra-biblical accounts supports Jesus' resurrection. Do u need every single one of them to mention the word "resurrection" for you to take it as history?
4IDHero 5 months ago
@4IDHero "The fact that you ignore research into these issues by asking Youtubers for proof, cannot get more dishonest than that".
..facepalm..You mean "research" by non-historians such as Craig, where the real historians like Ehrman and Carrier claim just the opposite? Talk about you "cannot get more dishonest".
Further, you are bneing dishonest and contradictory by you claim of asking for "proof", I never have. I simply want evidence. Your strawman is dishonest.
jimmo42 6 months ago