Board index ‹ Christianity

[Boats on the Sea]

> It's not a misunderstanding of the burden of proof, but rather seeing theism in the category of abductive reasoning, where we are dealing in plausibility: inference to the best explanation.

I remain utterly unconvinced that any kind of theism is the "best" explanation, especially considering we have nothing, to my knowledge, that indicates their existence.

Is it not possible that we simply don't have enough information to be confident in any abductive conclusion?

> Then I am concerned that you haven't read widely on any viewpoint except the one you already endorse.

I am an ex-Christian, and have studied this a fair bit. There is a lot of supposed evidence for gods, but nothing credible. Accusing your interlocutor of being biased without any sort of demonstration is unhelpful.

If we admit the possibility of a god, we must weigh the various perspectives on what sort of deity he/she/it is and what how he/she/it has made himself known.

I am not convinced that a god is possible to begin with. How do we know that it is actually possible for gods to exist? This seems to be a baseless assumption, and also ignores the deistic god; that is, an extant god that does not make itself known.

> Naturalism lacks sufficient explanation for everything we see in the universe and the world.

Baseless assertion, and irrelevant. I am not required to advocate for philosophical naturalism, merely that theism remains undemonstrated.
What is one thing we can both agree is true that naturalism cannot explain?

> It has more sufficient explanation than naturalism, which claims that this order came from an explosion.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. I am satisfied by the explanation that the universe's current state is as a result of the processes set by the Big Bang. Please study a little bit of cosmology before making unfounded assertions. Also, an explanation is either sufficient, or it is not. A god is indeed a sufficient explanation. So are Big Bang directing pixies. So is the unguided Big Bang. Which explanation do you suppose is the best evidenced?

> The Bible says God is a God of power, and what caused the universe to "Bang" would have to be a powerful entity.

Baseless assertion, and an argument from ignorance. We do not know what, if anything "caused" the Big Bang. We certainly do not know that it was an entity.

> Naturalism has an insufficient explanation as to how human personality came about through impersonal chemicals and chemical reactions.

Evolutionary biologists and neurologists seem fairly convinced that our brains developed through purely materialistic means. We are unaware of anything but the material that can generate thoughts. There is no evidence of the soul. So this is another unfounded assertion. The best I can give you is that we do not yet have a good understanding of how consciousness functions, but all that means is that our understanding is incomplete.

> Beauty. In naturalism we might expect chaos, disorder, and "rawness."

Baseless assertion. And a clear misinderstanding of cosmology, evolution and what beauty is. Beauty is an entirely subjective qualifier that humans attribute to objects. It is not an intrinsic property of anything.

> The Trinity is the foundation of particularity and subject/object relationships, without which creation is impossible and there is no foundation for knowledge or personality.

I literally have no idea what you mean here. Even if my guess at your meaning is remotely accurate, this appears to be another baseless assertion. As far as I can tell, the concept of the Trinity violates the principle of non-contradiction, and is thus logically incoherent. Please explain how the Trinity is logical, let alone necessary.

> The Bible points to a divine revealer

I do not care what the Bible says until its claims can be verified. They have not been. If a god has not revealed itself, it cannot be known? Is it not possible that no god has revealed itself? Or that no god exists to reveal itself?

The Christian god proposition also runs afoul of other philosophical problems, such as the problem of evil. Most damningly, however, is the fact that there is no credible, scientifically verified evidence that a "god" is even a class of being that can exist.

You are making the claim. Provide evidence. Because, spoiler warning, the resurrection is not good evidence.

> The tomb was empty.

What tomb? Seriously, provide any extra-Biblical account of the empty tomb. Considering Roman practice at the time, it is far more likely that any historical Jesus's body would have been disposed of in a mass grave.

The criteria of embarrassment. First of all, claiming such a thing as physical resurrection to begin with. Second, to claim that women were the first to see him (this is the last thing a fiction writer of the era would claim).

I never stated that the Gospels were intended to be fiction. I believe that the authors were trying to relay their beliefs relatively accurately. I just see no reason to think their beliefs, likely shaped by oral traditions and Paul's epistles, comport with reality. The Gospels also do not agree on the number or identity of the women, and the earliest Gospel, Mark, concludes in its earliest versions that the women did not tell anyone. The Gospels contradict each other in several places, especially here, so I do not see how you can base any firm argument on minute details in contradictory accounts.

Also, plenty of religious and other texts make fantastical claims. Does the account of Muhammad reportedly flying into the sky on a horse seem more credible due to the impossibility of that claim? No, in fact, it is the opposite.

> Jesus's disciples were convinced he rose from the dead. We have multiple ancient sources of this fact.

What sources? Which disciples? Please cite any extra-Biblical, contemporary source that discusses any of the supposed Twelve Disciples.
Also, all that tells me, even if true, is that the disciples truly believed it. Plenty of people believe false things. You can find hundreds of people today who will give you a first-hand account of their abduction by aliens, of their psychic abilities, the effectiveness of healing crystals, of ghosts, etc. Evidence of a truly held belief is not evidence that the belief is true.

> N.T. Wright says…

All this quote says, in effect, that if the Biblical accounts are true, then they are true. It is not helpful, insightful, or useful.

> What is your evidence that they are second-hand accounts at best?

All mainstream, modern Biblical scholarship. Do your research.

> I say that Matthew and John's accounts are not, and that some of Mark's Gospel are not.

So… do you have evidence that supports your thinking, that contradicts modern scholarship?

> The only biographies we have of Alexander the Great were written several centuries after his death. Should we toss them?

Responding to all of these questions in one go.

We should always temper our expectations to the evidence available. Even then, history represents our current best guess.

We have archaeological evidence that supports Alexander the Great, though I remain skeptical of highly specific claims about his life. I will use another historical figure I am more familiar with. We are fairly certain that Julius Caesar existed. We accept many claims about him, but reject other claims, even if they are made by the same author. One such rejected claim is Caesar's supposed divinity. Because we don't have any evidence to suggest that he was divine, or even that "divine" describes anything in reality.

I remain skeptical of the claims made about Jesus, both because we have nothing but anonymous accounts of non-eyewitnesses, and because several of the claims made about him in the Gospels contradict both each other, and our present understanding of reality.

Again, the Bible is not unique in making supernatural claims. I currently reject all of them. Not a priori, but due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

> It's a ludicrous claim scientifically, theologically (nothing in Judaism claims that such a thing is possible or was expected), and historically. It's also not something you want to claim to win converts in the very city where he was executed a mere 7 weeks earlier. And yet they do.

It is a ludicrous claim that homeopathic medicine can cure illnesses, according to our understanding of medicine, chemistry, and biology. It's not something you want to claim when peer-reviewed studies indicate that homeopathic remedies are effectively expensive placebos. And yet, people buy homeopathic remedies, sometimes endangering their lives by choosing it over actual medicine.

All someone's beliefs tell me is what they believe. Not if they are true. Many people genuinely and fervently hold beliefs which have been demonstrated to be wrong. Oh, and I have no idea of what you mean by this whole "seven weeks" thing.

> It depends what you regard as "demonstrable facts." Clarify that for me, and we can talk.

I can see no functional difference between Elvis's reported existence after his death and Jesus's. Except in that we have vastly superior evidence that describes Elvis's existence, life and death. We also have multiple first-hand accounts of people interacting with such an Elvis.
With all of this, I still reject the claim that Elvis rose from the dead, or survived his death, somehow. Why would I accept the claim of Jesus's resurrection when I have even less evidence to go off?

I classify them both as almost definitely false. You are claiming that Jesus's case is different. How? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

[jimwalton]

> I remain utterly unconvinced that any kind of theism is the "best" explanation, especially considering we have nothing, to my knowledge, that indicates their existence.

Then, first of all, please present a stronger explanation.

Second, there are plenty of points of logic, science, and experience that indicate the existence of God: that there is something rather than nothing, that nothing can spontaneously generate its own existence, that the universe is remarkably fine-tuned for life, that we are conscious beings of intelligence, morality, and purpose, and many more.

> Is it not possible that we simply don't have enough information to be confident in any abductive conclusion?

Anything is possible, but I consider that we have more than adequate information for this decision in particular. I'd be pleased to see your opposing case that is so much stronger than the case for theism.

> I am an ex-Christian, and have studied this a fair bit.

Good.

> There is a lot of supposed evidence for gods, but nothing credible.

I guess it depends what evidence you are assessing.

> How do we know that it is actually possible for gods to exist? This seems to be a baseless assumption

We assess the case: cosmology, teleology, scientific, historical, logical, experiential, and metaphysical. That's how we always discern truth.

> What is one thing we can both agree is true that naturalism cannot explain?

The resurrection.

>> Naturalism lacks sufficient explanation
> Baseless assertion, and irrelevant.

It is neither baseless nor irrelevant. The arguments for the existence of God provide a complete explanation of the phenomena, whereas science lacks that power of sufficiency. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, we have to assess the competence of competing views to explain reality. God qualifies for the principle of sufficient reason, whereas naturalism does not.

> merely that theism remains undemonstrated.

Theism is adequately demonstrated. Not everyone has to agree for something to be adequately demonstrated.

> Please study a little bit of cosmology before making unfounded assertions.

The insults are not conducive to dialogue. "Explosion" is merely a colloquial way to describe the sudden and turbulent expansion.

>> The Bible says God is a God of power, and what caused the universe to "Bang" would have to be a powerful entity.
> Baseless assertion, and an argument from ignorance.

It is neither baseless nor ignorant. It is indisputable that the Bible says God is a God of power. Second, science tells us that first causes are always personal causes. Third, it is indisputable that the universe exhibits characteristics we would describe as powerful. Therefore, it is neither baseless nor ignorant to hypothesize that the causal mechanism of the expansion we call the Big Bang was what we would define as a demonstration of power.

> Evolutionary biologists and neurologists seem fairly convinced that our brains developed through purely materialistic means

I agree that there are natural explanations for brain development. No argument here. That by no means requires that there were no supernatural influences involved—a source undetectable by evolutionary biologists.

> We are unaware of anything but the material that can generate thoughts.

Correct. But this comes from the field of science that is restricted to the study of material nature.

> There is no evidence of the soul. So this is another unfounded assertion.

I didn't assert anything about the soul. That's another discussion that we have no room for here.

>> The Trinity is the foundation of particularity and subject/object relationships...
> I literally have no idea what you mean here.

If God is nothing more than a monadic singularity, that leaves us with only non-personality as ultimate reality. If there is no plurality within God's being, then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. For that matter, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all. That's why the Trinity is necessary for life and science as we know it.

> baseless assertion

You like saying this. I don't make any baseless assertions. Please leave this detritus behind.

> I do not care what the Bible says until its claims can be verified. They have not been.

Many of the Bible's claim have been verified. Proverbs 30.33 is an easy one to start with.

> The Christian god proposition also runs afoul of other philosophical problems, such as the problem of evil.

The problem of evil has been dealt with by many theologians and Christian philosophers through the millennia. I will assume that you are at least partially read on the subject, and if you, you know it's not really a problem. There is no contradiction between theism (and omnipotent and omnibenevolent God) and the existence of evil. But that's another conversation that there is no room for here.

> Most damningly, however, is the fact that there is no credible, scientifically verified evidence that a "god" is even a class of being that can exist.

This is an odd claim. If I were being snarky, I could say it's a baseless assertion. First, it matters what you mean be scientifically verified evidence. Second, it's odd that you think God would be scientifically observable. Third, science works in predictable, observable, repeatable situations (hypothesis, experimentation through data collection, etc.) Since God doesn't perform on demand or even how, when, and where one's scientific equipment is set up, it's not a reasonable expectation. Neither is there any credible, scientifically verified evidence of what I am thinking (but only that I am thinking). This objection doesn't go anywhere.

> What tomb? Seriously, provide any extra-Biblical account of the empty tomb.

• Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) record for us that Christianity was perceived by some pockets of the Roman Empire to be a movement to be oppressed, yet not a single ancient writer (Roman or Jewish) discredits or denies that the tomb was empty. No ancient writer refutes the claims of the disciples and Paul that the tomb was empty.
• Neither the Romans nor the Jews ever produced a body to refute the claim.
• History. Christianity could not have and would not have flourished in Jerusalem 7 weeks after the crucifixion if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Claims to the resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb were not verifiably empty, and Christianity would have fizzled quickly if there were any evidence contrary to that claim.

> Considering Roman practice at the time, it is far more likely that any historical Jesus's body would have been disposed of in a mass grave.

• Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the 3rd century, says: "The bodies of those who are capitally punished cannot be denied to their relatives. At this day, however, the bodies of those who are executed are buried only in case permission is asked and granted; and sometimes permission is not given, especially in the cases of those who are punished for high treason. The bodies of the executed are to be given for burial to any one who asks for them."
• Marvin Vincent: "Avaricious governors sometimes sold this privilege (burial of the crucified). Cicero, in one of his orations against Verres, has a terribly graphic passage describing such extortions. After dwelling upon the tortures inflicted upon the condemned, he says: 'Yet death is the end. It shall not be. Can cruelty go further? A way shall be found. For the bodies of the beheaded shall be thrown to the beasts. If this is grievous to parents, they may buy the liberty to burial.' " This proves that Roman officials allowed people to procure the corpses for burial.
• Cicero: The release of a corpse for burial depended solely upon the generosity of the magistrate. In actual practice, if the relatives of a condemned man sought permission for burial, the body was normally given to them. Cicero had permitted the burial of confederates of Catiline in response to the request of their wives.
• Philo reports that before a great festival, like the emperor's birthday (in Jesus's case, the Passover), the bodies of those who had been crucified were given to the relatives for proper burial.
• Rabbinical and Qumran texts attest to the Sanhedrin taking responsibility for the burial of executed criminals. This gives credibility to the claim that Joseph asked for and was granted the body of Jesus even though he was not a relative, and was allowed to bury him in his family tomb.
• One crucifixion victim—a man named Yehohanan—has been discovered and identified by archaeologists. Yehohanan’s remains were found in an ossuary in a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem. This is evidence of the burial of a crucified man. Jewish law does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs.

Burial in a tomb was consistent with Roman policies and practices regarding criminals who were crucified. It is well attested from both literary and archaeological evidence.

> likely shaped by oral traditions and Paul's epistles

This is not likely at all, but we can discuss it. No room for such a discussion here.

> What sources? Which disciples? Please cite any extra-Biblical, contemporary source that discusses any of the supposed Twelve Disciples.

• James' death is mentioned by Clement of Rome.
• Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.
• Ignatius of Antioch writes about Paul's martyrdom (though Paul wasn't one of the 12).

None of the other apostles are mentioned in extrabiblical literature until centuries later (and the information in those sources is unreliable).

>> What is your evidence that they are second-hand accounts at best?
> All mainstream, modern Biblical scholarship. Do your research.

Ah, no need for insults. I've been studying deeply for 40 years. I have researched the Gospels deeply. We can have this conversation on another forum where there's space.

> So… do you have evidence that supports your thinking, that contradicts modern scholarship?

Of course I do. Pages and pages of it. It will have to be in another forum. No space for everything with the character limitations of the post.

> I have no idea of what you mean by this whole "seven weeks" thing.

Peter preached the sermon at Pentecost 7 wks after Jesus' resurrection. That's when Christianity won thousands of converts, and it continued through history. It was within a month and a half, and at the Temple. It's the least likely place for his message to find acceptance if Jesus's body was still in the tomb.

> Why would I accept the claim of Jesus's resurrection when I have even less evidence to go off?

Because of the substance and nature of the evidence of it. We don't need the quantity that we have for someone in the modern era. If that were the case, we would disregard all ancient sources and information.

[Vesture El]

> Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) record for us that Christianity was perceived by some pockets of the Roman Empire to be a movement to be oppressed, yet not a single ancient writer (Roman or Jewish) discredits or denies that the tomb was empty. No ancient writer refutes the claims of the disciples and Paul that the tomb was empty. Neither the Romans nor the Jews ever produced a body to refute the claim.

So you don't have a source that the tomb was empty, your relying on the fact you aren't aware of anyone objecting to it. See the lack of people discrediting it doesn't mean it happened only that no one saw a need to discredit it. You also assume that we have a complete record of everyone who might have discredited it.

> History, Christianity could not have and would not have flourished in Jerusalem 7 weeks after the crucifixion if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Claims to the resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb were not verifiably empty, and Christianity would have fizzled quickly if there were any evidence contrary to that claim.

What's your source for it folourishing 7 weeks after? Also how do you know that christianity would necesserily have fizzeled out? Are you under the impression that only movements there's good evidence for can be successful?

> There is no evidence that nature is all there is. There is no science that can assure us that the natural world is the sum total of all reality.

Which is irrevelent as the fact we don't have evidence against a proposition doesn't mean we have evidence for it.

> People through the millennia have experienced the supernatural. And in case you're ready to say that experiences are unreliable as evidence, remember that how we process reality is through our experiences. Experiences can only be regarded as illegitimate if they can be proved to contain illegitimate features, such as lies, mental illness, or falsifiability.

How do you know anyone has experienced the supernatural? How would you establish that's what they were experiencing?

> With evidence that there are non-material realities, evidence that many people (even sane and educated) have experienced supernatural reality, and given that science has no case to rule out the supernatural, we have to admit it is possible.

Again it's unclear how you know anyone's experienced the supernatural. Though I'm not sure non material realities are the same as supernatural. And the fact we don't know something is impossible doesn't mean we know it's possible either.

[jimwalton]

> See the lack of people discrediting it doesn't mean it happened only that no one saw a need to discredit it

It is my point that both Jews and Romans had a motivation to discredit it. Both groups saw Christianity as a threat, one to religious truth and the other to political stability as they perceived it. That no author discredited the claim is significant.

> You also assume that we have a complete record of everyone who might have discredited it.

No I don't assume this. Documents and artifacts are being discovered daily. In actuality we have very little of what was written. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's Mediterranean History is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his Universal History in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost.

> What's your source for it flourishing 7 weeks after?

The only source we have of the early days is the book of Acts, widely respected as an accurate historical source in those items that are confirmable.

Other than that, I found helpful information in Thomas M. Finn, "The Early Christian World," (ed. Philip Esler), pp. 295-298. By examining the archaeological artifacts and documentation available from finds throughout the empire, he was able to locate Christian churches in 42 cities by the end of the 1st century. Estimates of congregational size we made via edifice size and available documentation. He has found no data that makes anything the Bible claims to be questionable.

> Also how do you know that christianity would necesserily have fizzeled out?

The essence of Christianity is founded on two non-scientific premises: God incarnated himself and was born of a virgin, and then rose from the dead 3 decades later after crucifixion. These claims are not the way to attract rational people. They will only succeed if the evidence supports the claims. The rapid growth of the Church by the people who knew Jesus is evidence of their acceptance of the claims.

> Are you under the impression that only movements there's good evidence for can be successful?

Of course not. Hitler was successful.

> Which is irrevelent as the fact we don't have evidence against a proposition doesn't mean we have evidence for it.

It's not irrelevant. The question at hand is "Are such things possible?" The answer is "Yes, they are possible." Whether they are plausible or probable is another question, but they are *possible*, so the statement I made and position I have taken is both relevant and logical.

> How do you know anyone has experienced the supernatural? How would you establish that's what they were experiencing?

First of all, the commonality of experiences across cultures and times. Second, the distinctive supernatural nature of the experiences (visions of Jesus by many hundreds of Muslims in the past several years, for instance).

> Again it's unclear how you know anyone's experienced the supernatural.

Their experiences are consistent across cultures and times, and they are consistent with the spiritual experiences that many people claim to have. And so it's fair to ask, "What makes you doubt that they are experiencing the supernatural?" I hope it's not just a priori bias, not allowing for such in your paradigm.

> Though I'm not sure non material realities are the same as supernatural.

They're not. I'm sure they're not. But they do prove that life is not just all about what is material, and that's an important observation and conclusion.

> And the fact we don't know something is impossible doesn't mean we know it's possible either.

Correct. I agree. We have to play all the cards to evaluate everything as best as we possibly can.

[Boats on the Sea]

> Then please present a stronger explanation—what you believe and substantiate it.

No.

I am not making a claim. You are. Do not shift the burden of proof. If a god exists, demonstrate it. I do not need a "stronger explanation" to be unconvinced that you have the right answer.

> There are plenty of points of logic, science, and experience that indicate the existence of God: that there is something rather than nothing, that nothing can spontaneously generate its own existence, that the universe is remarkably fine-tuned for life, that we are conscious beings of intelligence, morality, and purpose, etc.

All of these points have been thoroughly discussed by atheistic philosophers and scientists. Since you're not willing to back up your claims, I reject all of them.

I never claimed that the universe came from "nothing." The universe is not necessarily fine-tuned for life; rather, it seems life is finely adapted to our extremely tiny corner of the universe. The vast majority of the universe is absolutely lethal to all known forms of life.

> We assess the case: cosmology, teleology, scientific, historical, logical, experiential, and metaphysical. That's how we always discern truth.

Make the case then. You keep asserting you are right without demonstrating it.

>> What is one thing we can both agree is true that naturalism cannot explain?
> The Big Bang. Dark Matter. Professional wrestling. : )

The Big Bang currently has no scientifically verified cause. The process of the Big Bang, however, is explained through wholly materialistic means. And none of the leading hypotheses regarding the origin of the initial singularity include god, and all are entirely materialistic. At best, this is a god of the gaps.

Dark Matter is outside my current knowledge. However, I am aware of no serious scientific hypothesis or theory that necessitates the supernatural. All of them are entirely materialistic. Another god of the gaps.

The modern forms of both of these were arrived at using methodological naturalism. The "supernatural" has never been demonstrated to exist, so I cannot accept it as a candidate explanation.

> Second, science tells us that first causes are always personal causes.

Where? What science? What first cause? What do you mean by "personal?" We currently don't know how, or even if, energy came to exist. So this is, indeed, a baseless assertion.

> Third, it is indisputable that the universe exhibits characteristics we would describe as powerful.

I dispute this. "Powerful" is a subjective term, not a scientific one. The universe is energetic, yes, in that it has energy. What characteristics of it are "powerful?" How does this, in any way, get us to a god when we do not currently know how, or even if, the energy that comprised initial singularity formed?

It has not been demonstrated that an entity was responsible, or is necessarily responsible. I'm going to stick with my answer of "I don't know."

> Theism is adequately demonstrated. Not everyone has to agree for something to be adequately demonstrated.

Merely stating that something is demonstrated is not a demonstration.

Indicate any scientific evidence for gods, the supernatural, or any of the core claims for theism. Until then, this is a baseless assertion.

> But science certainly can't explain it all.

Then you are arguing from ignorance. I will accept a supernatural explanation for brain development and consciousness just as soon as it is demonstrated to be the case. Science not currently having an answer does not mean that there is no materialistic explanation. We do not, in science, get to default to "a god did it."

>> Even if a god did it, the time to think that is true is when thst is demonstrated.
> Correct. But this comes from the field of science that is restricted to the study of material nature.

I have no reason to think that anything but the material exists. What evidence do you have of the immaterial?

> The problem of evil has been dealt with by many thinkers through the millennia.

Yeah, no. I have read the work of these thinkers, and remain unconvinced. Unless you have some insight I have never read, I will continue to regard the PoE as a defeater of tri-omni god propositions. Again, if you won't make your case, I will reject it.

> If God is nothing more than a monadic singularity…

I am sorry, but this is incomprehensible to me. My understanding of knowledge, love, etc is entirely unreliant on a god. Before you go on about why a trinitarian god is necessary, it might be helpful if you explain how it does not violate the principle of non-contradiction.

> You like saying this. I don't make any baseless assertions. Please leave this detritus behind.

You have made several baseless assertions. I will keep calling them out until you stop making them. They are baseless until you provide evidence to support them.

> Burial in a tomb was consistent with Roman policies and practices regarding criminals who were crucified. It is well attested from both literary and archaeological evidence.

Okay, so I was misinformed. I freely admit that I was wrong. This still does not demonstrate that Jesus was indeed interred, let alone resurrected.

> Many of the Bible's claim have been verified. Proverbs 30.33 is an easy one to start with.

If you aren't going to take this seriously, go away. Many of the Bible's claims are absolutely wrong. The creation story is a myth. There was no global flood. Languages did not start with the Tower of Babel. The Exodus did not happen as described. Moses almost certainly did not exist as described. This is all following general historical consensus.

Stop making baseless assertions and start demonstrating them.

> This is not likely at all. No room for such a discussion here.

Why is it not likely? Why is there no room for discussion?

It is accepted as a fact that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written decades after the fact. The author never claims to be an eyewitness, and is anonymous. The latest, John (another anonymous work), is written over a century later. What were they based on, if not oral tradition and the Epistles? Many of the Epistles were likely written before the Gospels, after all.

> James' death is mentioned by Clement of Rome. Peter's death is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.

Clement's only accepted writing, the First Epistle of Clement, only directly refrrences the martyrdom of Paul, and strongly suggests Peter's martyrdom. Considering the fact that Clement was born after Jesus's death, he is not exactly in a good position to comment.

Dionysius was bishop in 171. Irenaeus was born in 130. Tertullian, 155. Eusibius, 263. More importantly, they are all bishops, who would be motivated to believe and spread traditions that solidified their own position and apostolic succession. So, no eyewitnesses again. I do not doubt that figures called James and Peter played a pivotal role in the early church. I doubt that the NT and highly motivated religious leaders accurately reported on their fate.

Eusibius is also considered by many historians to be an unreliable source.

>Of course I do. Pages and pages of it.

Get your work published, then. If it is historically sound, that shouldn't be an issue.

> Peter preached the sermon at Pentecost 7 wks after Jesus' resurrection. That's when Christianity won thousands of converts, and it continued through history.

What other source do you have other than Acts for this? I don't accept Acts as a reliable historical document. And yes, I know Christianity spread, and it originated in Jerusalem. Many religions have won many converts and spread as well. Does the fairly explosive growth of early Mormonism have any bearing on its truth?

> Because of the substance and nature of the evidence of it. We don't need the quantity that we have for someone in the modern era. If that were the case, we would disregard all ancient sources and information.

You missed my point. We have better evidence for Elvis's resurrection than we do for Jesus. I reject both. Why would I accept Jesus's resurrection and not, say, Muhammad riding a flying horse?

Also, I temper my confidence based on the quantity and quality of the evidence. I am extremely confident in even the minutiae of a historical figure such as Martin Luther King Jr. I am less confident in the minutiae and fine details of Alexander the Great.

> 1st, it matters what you mean be scientifically verified evidence.

Evidence that has been subject to peer review, and gathered using the scientific method.

> it's odd that you think God would be scientifically observable.

If a god can detectably interact with reality, we can detect and study these interactions. A god that does not detectably interact with reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

> science is about reproducibility. Since God doesn't perform on demand or even how, when, and where one's scientific equipment is set up, it's not a reasonable expectation.

How do you know your god performs at all? How do you know anything about it? Can this knowledge be verified? You keep making these assertions without basis.

> Neither is there any credible, scientifically verified evidence of what I am thinking (but only that I am thinking). This objection doesn't go anywhere.

You are treading into solipsism. I have no defeater for that, but, if you want to discuss it, waste someone else's time.

It is also a false equivalence. I never claimed to know what you are thinking. You claim to know that a god exists. If you can't demonstrate that a god is possible, let alone actually extant, the objection is pretty relevant.

[jimwalton]

> I am not making a claim. You are. Do not shift the burden of proof.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof, I'm curious to hear what you believe and why. If you believe, as many do, that the case for theism is not strong enough, then you, by all reasoning, must subscribe to a case that you consider to be stronger. I'm just wanting to hear it.

> If a god exists, demonstrate it.

The case for theism is substantial. I'll assume you're somewhat familiar with it, so I won't take up the whole post listing the points of argument. The arguments are cosmological, teleological, ontological, analogical, the experience of other minds, axiological, linguistic, scientific (the universe showing characteristics of having been designed, and the delicate fine-tuning of cosmological constants). Each one is a reasonable argument leading us to theism; together they are a formidable case.

And the case against seems to be largely non-existent. That's why it always surprises me that people claim the case for theism isn't strong enough, but they know of nothing even close to it in strength. Ah, go figure.

> All of these points have been thoroughly discussed by atheistic philosophers and scientists. Since you're not willing to back up your claims, I reject all of them.

Yes, theism is deeply debated, no argument there. I'm perfectly willing to back up my claims, but it takes a post all by itself (or even more than one) since the argument is so extensive. We can have this discussion if you want, but it would have to be on a separate forum to have room for it.

> I never claimed that the universe came from "nothing."

You don't have to. Science holds the position that the universe was a dimensionless singularity.

> The universe is not necessarily fine-tuned for life; rather, it seems life is finely adapted to our extremely tiny corner of the universe.

It's the universe in total, not just our corner of it. It's things like

• The comic microwave background radiation (the distribution of matter and energy throughout the entire universe).
• The magnitudes of fundamental constants such as the mass and charge of electrons, protons, and neutrons through the entire universe.
• The speed of light throughout the entire universe.
• The strong nuclear force throughout the entire universe
• The ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity (~10^35) is precisely right for a star to be stable—throughout the entire universe.
• The level of gravity throughout the entire universe, regulating the speed and nature of the continuing expansion.
• Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe.
• etc.

> Make the case then. You keep asserting you are right without demonstrating it.

You keep asking for it, but there's no room on this post. I'll reply a separate reply to your post with the case. And I would appreciate you sending me your case, substantiating what you believe. That way we can see where the logical and evidentiary strength lies.

> The Big Bang currently has no scientifically verified cause.

Correct. Although current scientific theory is that before the Big Bang there was nothing but a dimensionless singularity. The laws of nature and physics were not operative. It is thought that time did not exist. And no scientific theory has yet successfully explained the causal mechanism for the Big Bang.

> The process of the Big Bang, however, is explained through wholly materialistic means.

You mean the rapid expansion? Of course it's explainable through materialistic means. And yet at the same time it's not. Science cannot explain how such a disorderly process led to such beautiful order as we see it and precision constants necessary for life.

> And none of the leading hypotheses regarding the origin of the initial singularity include god

A scientist can't include God as an explanation. If they did, they would no longer be doing science, but philosophy or theology. Science has its appropriate arena: the natural world. Beyond that, it's philosophy of science or theology.

> Dark Matter is outside my current knowledge.

It's outside of everyone's current knowledge. Its existence is hypothetical speculated, and it is undetectable.

> I am aware of no serious scientific hypothesis or theory that necessitates the supernatural.

Of course not. Any thought of that takes one out of the field of science and into the realm of metaphysics. But the idea is not for science to observe that the supernatural is necessary; that's not the point here. The point is that if we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, the evidence is stronger in favor theism than of naturalism.

> Where? What science? What first cause? What do you mean by "personal?" We currently don't know how, or even if, energy came to exist. So this is, indeed, a baseless assertion.

Please stop with your "baseless assertion" clutter. I've asked you before. Science tells us that first causes are personal causes. We see a chain of cause-and-effect tracing back to the Big Bang. Likewise, we see another grand chain of cause and effect at work on our Earth. Outside of that obvious continuum, we observe that all first causes are personal causes. The balls on a billiard table will stay as they are unless someone sets them in motion. Your clothes will stay in the drawer unless someone disturbs them. To set a sequence in motion not related to the natural cause-and-effect continuum requires a personal cause. Now, if we trace back to before the Big Bang, when the laws of nature were not yet in existence, and there was nothing (for all intents and purposes), we have to hypothesize the nature of the first cause. Science leads us to believe that it was personal.

> I dispute this. "Powerful" is a subjective term, not a scientific one.

Then let's stick to the science. In physics, power is the rate of doing work or of transferring heat, i.e. the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics))

> I have no reason to think that anything but the material exists. What evidence do you have of the immaterial?

I already gave you evidence of the non-material. Things like time, dark matter, memories, consciousness.

> Many of the Bible's claims are absolutely wrong. The creation story is a myth

Genesis 1 is about God ordering the universe and the world to function in a certain way, not about the material manufacture of the universe. There is nothing mythical about it. Day 1: a period of light functions to give us day, a period of darkness functions to give us night, their alternation gives us time. Day 3: The Earth functions to bring forth vegetation, functioning for our survival. Day 4: The heavenly bodies function to give us seasons and measures of time. Day 6: The function of humanity is to rule the Earth and subdue it. It's about function, not its manufacture. We can talk about this more if you want.

> There was no global flood.

Correct. It was a regional flood. We can talk about this more if you want.

> Languages did not start with the Tower of Babel.

Correct. The Bible is quite clear about that (Gn. 10.5).

> The Exodus did not happen as described

You have no proof of that. We have no evidence that it happened, but we have no evidence that it didn't. It's a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to assume that no evidence = it didn't happen.

> Moses almost certainly did not exist as described.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is just an opinion unsupported (just as the biblical record of Moses is unsupported outside of the text).

> Why is it not likely? Why is there no room for discussion?

Because the posts would get ridiculously unwieldy. We should discuss these huge subjects on separate posts.

> It is accepted as a fact that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written decades after the fact.

Correct. Mark was likely the first, written anywhere from the late 50s to the mid 70s (most likely in the 60s). Matthew and Luke are often put in the 70s, but I put them in the early 60s.

> The author never claims to be an eyewitness

The author of John explicitly does (Jn. 1.14; 19.35).

> The latest, John (another anonymous work), is written over a century later.

Incorrect. We have a fragment of John (P52) from AD 125 (actually, anywhere from 100-150). It is difficult to date closer than that. But Hermas (AD 100) alludes to 4 Gospels, so John was actually written before 100. I think there are very good reasons to place the writing of John in the 70s or 80s. Some scholars (a minority) put John in the 60s also. There are some evidences that could allow that conclusion.

> What were they based on, if not oral tradition and the Epistles?

They were based on the personal experiences of the apostles with Jesus. It is widely regarded that during the 40s and 50s a document called Q was written with the accounts of Jesus's life and teachings. But there are valid reasons to consider that the authors of the Gospels were Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn. This is a longer discussion for which there isn't room in this post.

> Many of the Epistles were likely written before the Gospels, after all.

This is correct. But there's nothing in any of the Epistles that links to what we read in the Gospels. It's not plausible that the Epistles were source material for them.

>> James' death is mentioned by Clement of Rome.
> Clement's only accepted writing...

My bad. It was mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, not Clement of Rome.

> Clement was born after Jesus's death, he is not exactly in a good position to comment.

Are you implying that any journalist born after a subject on which they are reporting shouldn't comment? So no one younger than 24 has any business talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I don't agree.

> So, no eyewitnesses again.

If you only accept testimony from eyewitnesses, I hope you never watch the evening news or read a magazine. I'm quite convinced that David Muir has not eyewitnesses most of the things he reports on.

We've been listening to news about the tragic fires in Australia. But Nora O'Donnell (CBS) hasn't been to Australia since the fires began.

> I doubt that the NT and highly motivated religious leaders accurately reported on their fate.

You must have a reason for thinking they would make up a story of their execution.

> Eusibius is also considered by many historians to be an unreliable source.

Unfortunately, Eusebius is the ONLY source for many of the things he said. We have little basis to evaluate errors.

> Get your work published, then. If it is historically sound, that shouldn't be an issue.

I've written 16 books, thank you.

> I don't accept Acts as a reliable historical document.

And why not? Do you have proof that ANY of it is fictional or falsely recorded? I'd love to see that. Acts is demonstrably reliable.

> We have better evidence for Elvis's resurrection than we do for Jesus

Actually we don't. There is no evidence for Elvis's resurrection, and his body can be exhumed if anyone really wanted to confirm it.

> Evidence that has been subject to peer review, and gathered using the scientific method.

Again, it's a bit artificial. Science can only reach into its own area: the natural world.

> If a god can detectably interact with reality, we can detect and study these interactions.

Only if they're predictable, and a panel of scientists with their equipment can be set up ahead of time to capture the event. That's not possible; God isn't our organ monkey to do our bidding.

> How do you know your god performs at all? How do you know anything about it? Can this knowledge be verified? You keep making these assertions without basis.

There have been roughly 3000 years of observations, experiences, and reports.

> I never claimed to know what you are thinking.

No, but you claim that the only valid knowledge is that which is scientifically verifiable by the the scientific method.

> You claim to know that a god exists.

I'll address this in the next post.

[No Username]

Hey thanks again for the response. I appreciate all you have put into it.

So to start where you say your case is stronger because I have not expressed my case, my case is atheism. Let me explain and hopefully it isn't seen as a copout. When you present your case for God, I simply think no that's not enough for me, I remain atheist and still lack belief in your chosen deity. No more complex than that.

Glad to hear your position on the Big Bang. I wish you would have addressed occams razor though, especially how it relates here. The Big Bang is a model for space and time so shoving God of the Gaps in there makes it more complex. You are saying God created the singularity that became the universe because he is timeless, but this is more complex. In this scenario, how did God create the universe? We have data for the big bang but not your god claim. Kalam argument is enough. How do you know your god existed before Time? How do you know it is was personal. Faith I think is all you got, but since you say you have actual evidence, what was that again?

There must be something eternal? How do you know? You say your chosen god is a reasonable direction for explanation, but what else have you considered? Seems like nothing to me.

I'm also glad to hear your position of intelligent design. But tell me, what makes your biblical interpretation more correct than that of a creationist? What reliable method are you using to interpret the bible that they are not using?

Fine tuning implies a tuner, does it not? I reject that, unless you have some evidence that we can point to. Try to clarify why and how god made it this way rather than simply riding on the back of science and saying this is this way because god.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

Yes there are observed regularities in the universe that need to be a certain way for other things to be a certain way. All your bullet points were not an argument for fine tuning, unless I missed it. All I see is an argument from incredulity. This is why I mentioned pseudo science. Where specifically is the evidence that points to your chosen god in the cosmic microwave background or earth's orbit?

I'm sorry I inappropriately said you dismissed science. You seem to be very knowledgeable and smart. I just see you going an extra unnecessary and unscientific step by bringing God into it. That is the defenition of God of the Gaps.

To try to keep the point tighter and avoid Gish Gallop, I will try to end here. My case is the scientific case, minus the special pleading God needs. You saying you dont use faith, but instead use evidence: logical, scientific and historical. I've shown why its not logical to me, its making more assumptions and adding complexity. I've shown why it's not scientific, and asked you to point out where science reveals good. I didn't get into any history in this one, we didn't really talk much about that here.

Feel free to respond or disagree and move along. Thanks again for your time, hopefully I dont come off as too antagonistic because that isn't my intent with you. I like you. You seem patient and well spoken. Cheers again!

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.

> I wish you would have addressed occams razor though, especially how it relates here.

Occam's Razor applies to the theism/naturalism question in that God is the simplest explanation of the phenomena. There is a natural connection between theism and causlity: intelligence, personality, intent, freedom, power, and laws. Theism has sufficient prior probability (simplicity of explanation, Occam's Razor) and complete explanatory power. The intrinsic probability of theism is, relative to other hypothesis about what there is, very high. The occurrence of certain phenomena raises the probability of God's existence, if and only if it is more probable that those phenomena will occur if there is a God than if there isn't. To show that it is unlikely that the phenomena would occur unless there were a God, one has to show that it is unlikely that there is any complete explanation of the phenomena (e.g., scientific explanation) other than one which involves God’s agency.

• In the end, it s very unlikely that a universe like ours would exist uncaused, but quite more likely that God would exist uncaused.
• The universe is quite comprehensible is we suppose it was brought about by God. "God" is a simpler explanation than the supposition of an uncaused universe.
• Given the Big Bang, we could expect that the universe would be chaotic, and yet it is not. It is orderly and "law"-abiding. The existence of such order speaks to the probability of the existence of a powerful, intelligent, purposeful, orderly source.

Science can explain part of it, but lacks sufficiency of explanation for all of it. From the very nature of science, it cannot explain the highest level laws at all. It screams for explanation of a source with the power to produce it, the intelligence for what we see, and the personality was humans have. All roads lead us to theism if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion. A personal explanation has more explanatory power.

> how did God create the universe?

By the natural processes that we observe as scientific data.

> We have data for the big bang but not your god claim.

God is not averse to using natural processes. The Bible is quite clear that He often does. Certainly the "God-particle" is not scientifically detectable. Metaphysics is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.

> How do you know your god existed before Time?

Something is eternal. It's either matter and energy, or just energy, or something else. Science right now tells us that before the Big Bang there was just a dimensionless singularity—that the universe (and perhaps time) had a beginning. If this is the case, then something powerful, timeless, intelligent, and personal existed before nature did. God is a reasonable direction for an explanation.

> How do you know it is was personal.

First causes are always personal. Secondly, since humans are personal, we have to assess whether a personal or an impersonal source is the more reasonable explanation. It's a straighter logical line (Occam's Razor) from personal to personal than impersonal to personal.

> Faith I think is all you got, but since you say you have actual evidence, what was that again?

I'm an evidentialist. Logic and science are the basis for my beliefs.

• Since something that doesn't exist can't be its own cause, where something begins to exist, it must have a cause outside of itself.
• Since the universe had a beginning, it reasonably has a cause outside of itself.
• Since the universe exhibits many characteristics of having been design by a purposeful intelligence, it's a reasonable inference that it was indeed so purposed. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, it's a straighter line that a purposeful intelligence brought about the order we see than a chaotic rapid expansion.
• Since there are many characteristics of the universe that seem precision tuned to very narrow parameters, we must consider whether we just got stinkin' lucky or that an intelligence was involved. Again, we must reason to the best conclusion.
• It's more reasonable to think that intelligence came from an intelligent source, purpose from a purposeful source, morality from a moral source, order from an orderly source, than to think that all this fortuitously happened from an "explosion," natural selection and genetic mutation.

> There must be something eternal? How do you know?

Because nothing can self-generate when it doesn't exist.

> You say your chosen god is a reasonable direction for explanation, but what else have you considered? Seems like nothing to me.

Why would it seem like "nothing" to you? We've barely conversed. I've considered all kinds of alternatives. You don't know me well enough to say something like this.

> But tell me, what makes your biblical interpretation more correct than that of a creationist? What reliable method are you using to interpret the bible that they are not using?

I am a creationist, but not a young-earth, 6-day creationist. I'm an evolutionary creationist: God created what we see by long processes of time, natural processes, all guided by his intelligence and power.

> Fine tuning implies a tuner, does it not? I reject that, unless you have some evidence that we can point to

The quantity of evidence of the universe having very specific parameters to allow life is huge. They are so numerous and so definite that even Carr, Rees, Hawking, and Davies, among others, have marveled at the reality. That there are so many pieces of the puzzle that have to be in exactly the right pocket is more than astounding.

> Where specifically is the evidence that points to your chosen god in the cosmic microwave background or earth's orbit?

God provides the sufficiency of explanation for these phenomena whereas science does not. The universe is characterized by vast, all-pervasive temporal order, the conformity of nature to formula, recorded in the scientific laws formulated by men. These phenomena, like the very existence of the world, is clearly something "too big" for science to explain. If there is an explanation of the order of the universe, it can't be a scientific one. Science is an awesome thing, don't get me wrong, and I have a world of respect for it and for scientists, but it can't explain how all of these constants are all true, except, "Well, we wouldn't be here to make the observation if it didn't work out that way."

Swinburne poses an interesting analogy: "Suppose a madman kidnaps a victim and shut him in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles 10 packs of cards simultaneously and the draws a card from each pack and exhibits simultaneously the 10 cards. The kidnapper tells the victim that he will shortly set the machine to work and it will exhibit its first draw, but unless the draw consists of an ace of hearts from each of the 10 packs, the machine will simultaneously set off an explosion that will kill the victim, in consequence of which he will never see which cards the machine drew. The machine is then set to work, and to the amazement and relief of the victim the machine exhibits an ace of hearts drawn from each pack. The victim thinks this extraordinary fact needs an explanation in terms of the machine having been rigged in some way. But the kidnapper, who now reappears, casts doubt on the suggestion. 'It is hardly surprising,' he says, 'that the machine draws only aces of hearts. You could not possibly see anything else. For you would not be here to see anything at all if any other cards had been drawn.'

"But, of course, the victim is right and not the kidnapper. There is indeed something extraordinary in need of explanation in 10 aces of hearts being drawn. The fact that this peculiar order is a necessary condition of the draw being perceived at all makes what is perceived no less extraordinary and in need of explanation. The teleologist's starting point is not that we perceive order rather than disorder, but that order rather than disorder is there. Maybe only if order were there could we know what is there, but that makes what is there no less ordinary and in need of explanation."

[Vesture El]

> It is my point that both Jews and Romans had a motivation to discredit it. Both groups saw Christianity as a threat, one to religious truth and the other to political stability as they perceived it. That no author discredited the claim is significant.

Except that you don't know that no author discredits the claim, as you acknowlage we have an imcomplete history so the question of whether the claim was discredited can only be answered with the fact we don't know if they did or not.

> The only source we have of the early days is the book of Acts, widely respected as an accurate historical source in those items that are confirmable.

Does that tell us anything about whether it's claims that we can't confirm are accurate though?

> He has found no data that makes anything the Bible claims to be questionable.

Has he found any data to support the claims?

> The essence of Christianity is founded on two non-scientific premises: God incarnated himself and was born of a virgin, and then rose from the dead 3 decades later after crucifixion. These claims are not the way to attract rational people. They will only succeed if the evidence supports the claims. The rapid growth of the Church by the people who knew Jesus is evidence of their acceptance of the claims.

That assumes that people at the time or in general were rational, the fact people accept the claim tells us nothing about whether or not they had good reason to do so.

> First of all, the commonality of experiences across cultures and times.

So the argument is that because people have a comon experience there must be a supernatural cause? How have you reached that conclusion?

> Second, the distinctive supernatural nature of the experiences (visions of Jesus by many hundreds of Muslims in the past several years, for instance).

What about that is supernatural? That sounds like your just begging the question. More generally how do you define supernatural in the case? How do you get from the idea that some muslims have an experience where they have visions of Jesus to the conclusion that the causation is supernatural?

> And so it's fair to ask, "What makes you doubt that they are experiencing the supernatural?" I hope it's not just a priori bias, not allowing for such in your paradigm.

I don't know whether or not there's such a thing as a supernatural for them to experience, so I don't know it's possible for them to experience it. Equally I'm not aware of any time we've established that the supernatural exists.

I doubt they're experience the supernatural because I see a lack of evidence to conclued they are.

[jimwalton]

> Except that you don't know that no author discredits the claim, as you acknowlage we have an imcomplete history so the question of whether the claim was discredited can only be answered with the fact we don't know if they did or not.

Correct. All I can claim is that we have no record or hint of anyone discrediting the claim in the documents that have survived. But then that will be the case with all ancient documents, events, and issues. With limited documentation, we must bring as much reasoning power and evidence to bear to make our decisions.

> Does that tell us anything about whether it's claims that we can't confirm are accurate though?

Generally, yes it does. Since Acts is dead-on accurate with everything we can confirm, it gives the book credibility in its authenticity.

> Has he found any data to support the claims?

Of course. Many of the Bible's claims are supported and corroborated. As a matter of fact, no archaeological discovery has EVER show something in the Bible to be untrue.

> That assumes that people at the time or in general were rational, the fact people accept the claim tells us nothing about whether or not they had good reason to do so.

I think you're really grasping at straws with this one. Seriously—they were all deranged?

> So the argument is that because people have a comon experience there must be a supernatural cause?

No, that's not my argument. What I am saying is that the commonality of experiences lends credibility to the legitimacy of the experiences.

> What about that is supernatural?

I consider supernatural visions to be supernatural.

> how do you define supernatural in the case?

I would off the top of my head define "supernatural" as "not of the natural world or part of natural phenomena."