Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Tarnished]

> This is from John 19.41. The Gospel of John is full of eyewitness touches.

So the answer is 'from a book of stories written by anonymous authors '?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date

This hardly stands up as extraordinary evidence.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, please don't link me to a Wikipedia article. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, but Wikipedia is not the standard of information. We have to examine the evidence, not just default to a "well, most scholars say..." blah blah.

There is a strong case for Johannine authorship. If you want to discuss it, we can, but let's leave Wikipedia out of it, please. I've been studying this for a long time. I have 5 reasons the evidence suggests John didn't write it, 13 evidences that he did, and 18 items of evidence that are unsettled.

Knowing how manuscript copying and transmission worked, the idea that disparate copies all ended up with the same attribution—John—is evidence against a pseudonymic author. That there is NO competing author ever presented is also an argument. That the Gospel was UNIVERSALLY and UNANIMOUSLY accepted as Johannine is strong external evidence to John's authorship. You know, if someone were to write a work and try to pass it off as John's, he would be sure to put John's name in there to bolster his case. This is just the first of 13 evidences for John as author.

Estimates on the date of writing vary from the 60s to the 90s. It can't be earlier than 64, and it can't be later than 94. There are good reasons to place it early, and there are also good reasons to place it later, so no one can really take a stand on any particular date of writing; it's still up for grabs.

The thing is this: If you're determined to take it as unreliable and as "hardly standing up as extraordinary evidence," then there's no reason to present the evidence. If you want to honestly and objectively discuss the authorship of John—and I happen to think the case weighs in the favor of John rather than anyone else—then we can have that discussion.

But don't just link me to Wikipedia and think (1) that settles the matter—case closed, or (2) your position is substantiated. The authorship of John and its date are HUGE and complex discussions.

[Tarnished]

> We have to examine the evidence, not just default to a "well, most scholars say..." blah blah.

Says the creationist. Creation is a religious story written by people who didn't know any better. Evolution is only a thing because its where the evidence leads.

> Yeah, please don't link me to a Wikipedia article. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, but Wikipedia is not the standard of information.

Not so fast, Wikipedia is very good at citing sources. Because of this, it is actually very reliable, especially when you check the sources. You can't dismiss it for any good reason.

> but let's leave Wikipedia out of it, please

Why?

[jimwalton]

> Says the creationist

I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution. God was the causal mechanism, the progress of the rapid expansion caused by the Big Bang and the evolutionary process was the means. Is this a problem? I examine the evidence and follow it. Where the evidence DOESN'T lead me is that the universe caused itself, that the disorder of the Big Bang led to such an orderly universe with parameters fine-tuned for life, that impersonality led to personality, or that chemicals lead to reason and truth. An examination of the evidence tells me that naturalism is an insufficient explanation of what we see, but theism has sufficiency of explanation.

> Creation is a religious story written by people who didn't know any better.

The creation story in Genesis 1 is not an account of material manufacture but instead an account of how God ordered the universe to function. It tells us why the universe is here (something science cannot tell us), not how it came to be (something science definitely does tell us). So I disagree with your conclusion that it's a religious story written by people who didn't know any better.

> Not so fast, Wikipedia is very good at citing sources.

With something like biblical studies, the field is full of false scholars who have made it their business to deprecate the text and its authority. Of course you can do a Google search and come up with thousands of articles and scholars deprecating the text. And Wikipedia will link to many of them showing how it's "proved." Well, it's malarkey. It's false scholarship. If you want to talk about the text, let's you and I talk about it, not give me a cheap link to a minimalist scholar. That's why I dismiss it.

If you know the subject matter, let's you and I talk. If you don't know the subject matter, I'm surprised you're taking a position before you've done the work.

[Tarnished]

> I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution.

So not a young earth creationist?

> Where the evidence DOESN'T lead me is that the universe caused itself

Well, considering the science doesn't suggest that, I don't believe that either. In fact, people who go with the science, probably most atheists, don't think that the universe caused itself.

> that the disorder of the Big Bang led to such an orderly universe

Then you don't understand the science. Not understanding something, them asserting something based on that lack of understanding is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

But you do believe, not because of evidence, but because your religion teaches it and teaches you to defend out, the notion that a creator being exists, and has always existed, despite there being no good evidence for it.

Why do you think the big bang started everything, except your god? Who says that there wasn't something else outside of the universe, or three universe existed in another state? If your god can transcend the universe, why can't the cosmos transcend the universe? Why can't time, space, and energy exist in a different state outside the universe? There are literally thousands of ideas that could have lead up to the big bang. Why do you fallacious say that it was either a god, or out of nothing?

That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer is to defend your belief. But you don't have evidence to support it.

> It tells us why the universe is here (something science cannot tell us), not how it came to be (something science definitely does tell us).

Telling us that a magic man in the sky willed it into existence does not tell us why. And science absolutely can tell us why things happen. If you know how something happened, you'll probably also figure out why.

Take lightning for example. This used to be credited to an angry god. Then we learned what causes it. So we can tell you why lightning strikes.

> So I disagree with your conclusion that it's a religious story written by people who didn't know any better.

But you agreed with me that it is a story. You disagree with it being written by people who didn't know any better because you believe it's true. Kinda putting the carriage before the horse here.

> With something like biblical studies, the field is full of false scholars who have made it their business to deprecate the text and its authority.

Nope, you just don't like the truth.

[jimwalton]

> So not a young earth creationist?

No, no, no. Not even close.

> In fact, people who go with the science, probably most atheists, don't think that the universe caused itself.

Science (and math) teaches that at one time the universe was a dimensionless singularity, where the physical forces didn't exist and the laws of nature were inoperative: zero spatial and zero temporal extension. So how could something in nature cause the Big Bang if nature didn't exist? What was the causal mechanism of the Big Bang?

> Then you don't understand the science.

Now, now, no reason to jump to conclusions and into insult. I understand science quite well, thank you.

> Not understanding something, them asserting something based on that lack of understanding

Considering that I didn't do this, the accusation fades on the floor with no takers.

> But you do believe, not because of evidence, but because your religion teaches it and teaches you to defend out, the notion that a creator being exists, and has always existed, despite there being no good evidence for it.

There is almost nothing in this sentence that is true. Your assumptions about me are just "out there." I'm an evidentialist: everything hangs on the evidence. Blind faith has no part in my thinking. I believe in a creator because the logical arguments and scientific evidence, combined with the evidences of my experiences, lead me to infer God as the most reasonable conclusion.

> Why do you think the big bang started everything, except your god?

Science tells us the Big Bang started everything.

• Mathematical calculations of rates and directions of expansion lead us to a singular point.
• Light's wave nature and its speed give us the age of the universe from a beginning point roughly 13.8 billion years ago
• The electromagnetic spectrum informs us of the age of galaxies
• Stellar parallax along with Doppler shift reveal distances and movements away from a central point of origin.

The Big Bang cosmological model fits all of these evidences.

Other evidences for the Big Bang:

• The night sky is dark. If the universe were infinite, there would be enough light to fill it—even dust wouldn't diminished the accumulated light from an infinity of stars over an infinitely large cosmos. Instead we have blackness. Olber's paradox shows us the universe is neither infinite in size or infinite in time, or neither.
• Quasars exist in the distant cosmos, which means they were common at one time but are no longer common. Occam's Razor: the universe was different in the past than it is now.
• The Expanding Universe. Redshift and the math confirm it.
• Cosmic microwave background radiation gives us a picture of the universe long ago. Light is old but not infinite, as far as we know.

> Who says that there wasn't something else outside of the universe, or three universe existed in another state

There is no evidence of other universes (multiverses). We follow the evidence. It's prejudicial to just make up stuff to suit our preconceived notions.

> Why can't time, space, and energy exist in a different state outside the universe?

Scientists are working all the time on speculations about this. If it's possible it has yet to be shown as possible. We have to follow the evidence, not fanciful speculations.

> There are literally thousands of ideas that could have lead up to the big bang.

Sure, there are always plenty of theories and guesses until we know the truth. Then there's only the right one.

> Why do you fallacious say that it was either a god, or out of nothing?

It's not fallacious at all. There are logical and scientific arguments for the existence of God that are far stronger than the arguments against, and that also have sufficiency of explanation, which alternate theories lack. We follow the logic, the science, and the evidence.

> But you don't have evidence to support it.

I have plenty of evidence to support what I believe. What I question is what evidence you have to support what you believe.

> Telling us that a magic man in the sky willed it into existence does not tell us why.

I didn't invoke a magic man in the sky at all. I followed the logic and evidence to the conclusion that theism is the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

> And science absolutely can tell us why things happen. If you know how something happened, you'll probably also figure out why.

Science does its diligence to explain why things happen, yes. But there are things science simply can't tell us:

• Is there a being that is God?
• How should we as humans live?
• Is there life after death?
• What is our place in the universe?
• How are we to purposefully relate to other creatures?
• Are WWF fights fixed?

Science doesn't and can't address some of the topics where we need the most help: religion, politics, law, and morals, for example.

> Take lightning for example. This used to be credited to an angry god. Then we learned what causes it. So we can tell you why lightning strikes.

Yep. You're right. But this doesn't take us anywhere except one example of superstition.

> But you agreed with me that it is a story.

Of course. Even my life is a story. The history of our country is a story. The biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a story.

> Kinda putting the carriage before the horse here.

Not at all. I believe the stories are true because there is evidence that gives them credibility. I have discovered no reason to concur that the writers "didn't know any better". I see just the opposite, actually. It's not because I "believe" it's true but rather because I'm convinced by the evidence that it's true.

> Nope, you just don't like the truth.

Now, now, no reason to insult. The truth is EVERYTHING.

[Tarnished]

> So how could something in nature cause the Big Bang if nature didn't exist? What was the causal mechanism of the Big Bang?

I don't know, therefore god?

> Now, now, no reason to jump to conclusions and into insult. I understand science quite well, thank you.

Then you wouldn't be inserting a god and saying the universe is designed. You cling to science, but then as soon as it's no longer convenient, you ditch it and start putting religion in.

If you understood the science, you'd see that physics guides matter into what we have. That the earth formed in an ideal environment to support the life that we know. That a hole in the road is perfectly shaped to contain the water, with the exact same shape, within it.

If you understood the science, you wouldn't be making a fine tuning argument.

Science does its diligence to explain why things happen, yes. But there are things science simply can't tell us
You mean, there are things science hasn't told us yet. I don't know how you think you can predict what humanity is or isn't going to figure out in the future.

And surely you recognise that filling in answers based on ignorance is a fallacy, so I don't even know why you'd bring up things we don't yet know as an argument for your god hypothesis.

And by the way, science also tells us that or ability to see the early parts of the big bang breaks down on our understanding of physics. You make it sound like science says there was nothing there, it doesn't, it says we haven't been able to observe anything. Big difference.

> believe the stories are true because there is evidence that gives them credibility.

Didn't I ask you for your one best piece of evidence for your god? Anyway, the god claims are about as extraordinary as claims can get. You don't have a single piece of evidence that conclusively shows that a god exists. You have a story started by superstitious people who knew way less than the average person today, who attempted to describe how things worked. And since they hadn't developed science yet, they just made shit up that seemed to satisfy. So you have a narrative that you've learned to defend, so you're probably cherry picking whatever you can to fit that narrative.

Anyway, this isn't a debate sub, so I'll let you have the last word. Have a good Monday. Cheers.

[jimwalton]

> I don't know, therefore god?

This is not how it works, so I don't appreciate the cheap shot.

• We know from science, logic, and sense, that nothing can cause itself to exist out of nonexistence. Anything that comes into existence cannot do so of its own volition. The causal mechanism must be outside of it.
• If before the Big Bang there was no nature, no laws of nature, and no physical forces, then the causal mechanism of the Big Bang was outside of all of those arenas. Therefore, not something natural or part of nature.
• If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, which is what scientists have concluded (for the time being), then the causal mechanism would be timeless.
• Since the universe exhibits quite a bit of what we would call power, then the causal mechanism has to have had and be able to exhibit more power than the sum total of what the universe displays, or we have a regressive impossibility: something smaller caused something greater.

Where the logic and evidence are pointing is to a cause outside of nature that is powerful, purposeful, and timeless. God (an eternal, powerful, metaphysical being) is a reasonable choice as to that cause.

> Then you wouldn't be inserting a god and saying the universe is designed.
> If you understood the science, you wouldn't be making a fine tuning argument

That's odd. I never said the universe is designed. The "design" argument and the "fine tuning" argument are distinct arguments. But since you brought it up, the universe does exhibit many characteristics of having been planned out by an intelligent source. There are dozens of parameters that are "conveniently" and extremely fine-tuned for life, without which life would be impossible. Given the nature of the "explosion" of the Big Bang, to end up with so many fortuitous qualities is beyond imagination. It's yet another evidence from science that intelligence, and not just luck or chance, was involved.

> You cling to science, but then as soon as it's no longer convenient, you ditch it and start putting religion in.

I've never ditched science. I can just see, as I've explained many times to you, that science is not and cannot be the sum total of all knowledge or the explanation of everything (I used the Supreme Court as one of my examples).

> If you understood the science, you'd see that physics guides matter into what we have.

I do see that. I have no problem with that. The universe WORKS. There is legitimate cause and effect. Nature has laws. No argument here.

> That the earth formed in an ideal environment to support the life that we know.

Yeah, and we have to ask why and how that happened, and infer the most reasonable conclusion. That the Earth formed an ideal environment when, as far as we know, such an environment is NOWHERE else in the universe—doesn't that make you wonder why? You have to conclude either we were jes' darn lucky, or something else is at play. Well, luck isn't the most reasonable conclusion. These cosmic constants could have been anything. If it were the roll of a dice, the odds are so staggeringly poor as to be impossible. Yet here we are.

> I don't know how you think you can predict what humanity is or isn't going to figure out in the future.

Because science is a field dedicated to studying the natural world, not the metaphysical one or philosophical threads. Science is only part of what we call knowledge, and science can only do what science can do; it can't do everything, as I've demonstrated.

> And surely you recognise that filling in answers based on ignorance is a fallacy

You're determined to categorize me as ignorant. I guess all of this scientific and rational debate won't change your prejudice. Oh well. By the way, that's a fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem": attack the person, not the case.

> Didn't I ask you for your one best piece of evidence for your god?

No, you didn't.

> Anyway, the god claims are about as extraordinary as claims can get. You don't have a single piece of evidence that conclusively shows that a god exists.

The arguments for God don't purport to offer proof, only evidence and the weight of logic. They are abductive arguments, not deductive or inductive ones.

> You have a story started by superstitious people

Well, you don't know this, now, do you?

> who knew way less than the average person today,

Yep, undeniable, but that doesn't make what they knew untrue any more than we can reject everything from the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans. But knowledge is knowledge and truth is truth. Just because the Egyptians may have discovered it 7000 years ago doesn't guarantee that it's untrue today. Time doesn't undo truth. Instead, time fills in the picture better, giving us more information and detail, as well as correcting falsehoods where they exist, and also discovering new things. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's false.

> And since they hadn't developed science yet, they just made shit up that seemed to satisfy.

Um, in the Bible they aren't making scientific statements. And, again, you have no evidence to back up this opinion. You've given plenty of opinion but very little support.

The creation account is about how God created it to function and why it is here—both issues that science can't address. Frankly, you can't give evidence that is incorrect, and there are many ways that the theistic answer is more concordant with what we see in science and the universe than naturalism is.

> So you have a narrative that you've learned to defend, so you're probably cherry picking whatever you can to fit that narrative.

This is totally untrue, another cheap shot, and I would interpret it as an unwillingness on your part to consider all options on the table.

> Have a good Monday. Cheers.

Thank you for the conversation. It's been a pleasure.