Atheism (2)

[Tinker Grey]

n/m

 

[Dave Ellis]

Since when has being a contemporary of a person become an absolute necessity in compiling an accurate historical account of said person?

Since the beginning of time.

We do know who wrote the biblical texts. This is not even an issue of contention in contemporary biblical scholarship. We have Christian and non-Christian evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as indicated by notable scholars such as Dr. R.T. France when he says: "Non-Christian evidence substantiates the fact of Jesus' existence, and His popular following, His execution and the rough date" (France, NBD, 564)

What is your non-christian evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, asserts that we have more and better historical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha, or Muhammad). Of the non-biblical sources testifying of Christ, Yamauchi concludes:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2. Many people believed that He performed healings and exorcisms
3. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
4. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
5. Despite His shameful death, His followers, who believed that He was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64.
6. All kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshipped Him as God by the beginning of the second century. (Yamauchi, JUF, 221,222).

Jesus was a real man and the fact that I have to even discuss this with you is quite incredible.

He is demonstrably incorrect. We do know for a fact that Muhammad (Islam) existed, and we know for a fact Joseph Smith (Mormonism) existed. We also have compelling evidence for the existence of Buddha, Confucius and many others.

There is no contemporary evidence from the lifetime of Jesus at all. For him to assert we have more proof for Jesus than someone like Joseph Smith is ludicrous.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is the truth claim that "Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States" a claim that is subject to the scientific method or historical research?

The claim he was president is one of historical research.

The claim Abraham Lincoln existed is one of science. That is an example of one truth claim we can definitively prove, as we have things he owned, wrote, and we can visit his grave and examine his body.

And can you provide me with your credentials in whatever branch of science you are an expert in? You say this as if it is an accepted fact. Not to mention the fact that I have said several times, empirical evidence is not always necessary to verify the truthfulness of a claim.

You don't have to have credentials to understand how the scientific method works. That's something you learn in grade 5.

Obviously you didn't pay much attention.

Give one example of something that you can definitively prove exists, without empirical evidence.

 

[Elioenai26]

You don't have to have credentials to understand how the scientific method works. That's something you learn in grade 5.

Obviously you didn't pay much attention.

Give one example of something that you can definitively prove exists, without empirical evidence.

You put too much stock in the scientific method my friend. Scientists don't even put as much stock into as you do. In fact, what you are espousing is more or less "scientism" than anything.

I guess you also do not understand that when you assert: "something must be subject to the rigorous standards of the scientific method in order for it to be proven true or false or plausible as opposed to implausible", you are forgetting that the scientific method itself cannot even be verified scientifically. To do so would be arguing in a circle. So please I would encourage you to just relax, and try to understand your own position a little more thouroghly before you attempt to discredit someone else's.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You put too much stock in the scientific method my friend. Scientists don't even put as much stock into as you do. In fact, what you are espousing is more or less "scientism" than anything.

I guess you also do not understand that when you assert: "something must be subject to the rigorous standards of the scientific method in order for it to be proven true or false or plausible as opposed to implausible", you are forgetting that the scientific method itself cannot even be verified scientifically. To do so would be arguing in a circle. So please I would encourage you to just relax, and try to understand your own position a little more thouroghly before you attempt to discredit someone else's.

Sadly enough, this is coming from someone who has no understanding of science, standards of evidence, or the scientific method at all.

The scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the best system we have devised to explain and understand the world, and universe around us.

Scientists put all their stock into the scientific method, as that's the tool used to determine scientific claims. It is the sole method by which science works.

Your assertion that the scientific method itself can't be verified scientifically is absurd... it is completely nonsensical, and a demonstration that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.


I would recommend you relax, develop some critical thinking skills and attempt to justify your own assertions, before you assert them as absolute truth. So far, you have done nothing but spread disinformation while remaining proudly and willfully ignorant of reality.

 

[createdtoworship]

Once we allow for exceptional claims to be accepted as hypotheses there are in fact countless other options.

it is an exceptional claim, I agree. But no others explain why we are here in existence, and why there is pain and suffering and a whole host of other things that God answers.

 

[createdtoworship]

Both of Pliny the Younger and Josephus were born decades after Christ was supposedly killed, and their writings on the topic date from the very late 1st century to early 2nd century.

They were not contemporary.

Also, the biblical texts are not reliable, as we don't know who wrote them, and are not backed by any other piece of evidence. We can't even prove Jesus existed, much less fulfilled prophecies as there is no contemporary evidence for him at all.

All we have to go on is writings from historians that lived and worked in an era where the eyewitnesses would have been long dead (that goes for the Gospels too). All people like Josephus were able to report is the beliefs of early Christians, and no historical account of Jesus himself.

okay okay, just watch this debate, it will answer your questions:

debate regarding atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4&feature=related

debate regarding Jesus Resurrection

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig - YouTube

 

[createdtoworship]

Care to give the chapter and verse of this prediction? Picking 6 seperate verses that have to be interperted a paticular way, a way that no one came up with until after the fact is not what I'd call an accurate predection. But that is just what I see touted most of the time.

daniel 9,

but read this, it will answer questions:

Daniel's Prophecy of Jesus

 

[createdtoworship]

That's the argument from ignorance fallacy "If you can't prove your case, then my claim is proven to be right". It doesn't work that way.

If it does work that way, then I will use your exact same argument against you and be equally as justified.

Unless you know what caused God, or in the case that he is infinite, can demonstrate that he is actually is infinte... then all we have is my option which is the Big Bang caused the creation of the universe through purely natural processes. There are no other hypotheses.

Stated that way, I'm sure you can see the obvious logical flaw in the argument.

Just because we don't understand what caused the big bang, does not allow you to plug your god into the equation and assert it as truth. That is also committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

The honest answer is we don't know how the universe was created in full. Trying to make up an answer for the sake of having an answer is counter-productive. We would be far better served by continuing to investigate, learn all we can on the topic and hopefully one day be able to fully understand it.

God does not have a cause. Or he wouldn't be God.

so you honestly believe will all your heart that we came from absolutely nothing. No atoms, then all of a sudden there were adams. See this is what I mean that God is the only answer. And no it's not an argument from ignorance, the ignorance is on your end not knowing.

 

[createdtoworship]

why the soul is eternal and why hell must be as well

The soul is software not hardware. And if it is software it has no mass....

the weight of an empty floppy disk is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

The mass of the floppy disk is .8 ounce, and will remain .8 ounce regardless of whether its individual magnetic particles are charged in a positive or negative manner. It's the pattern of neg (0) and pos (1) polarity of the existing particles already on the disk that make up what we call "software", not whether the disk is empty (which it is not) or full (also, which it is not)

the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes.

secondly,
time is the fourth dimension (a physical property)

time varies with mass, acceleration, and gravity. For a person travelling at 99% the speed of light, Time slows for them by a factor of 7 If they were to travel to a star 7 light years away, at 99% speed of light, it would take them 1 year, but to an observer on Earth it would have seemed like 7 years.


Time needs mass to operate, because time varies with mass, acceleration, and gravity.

so since the soul has no mass, the soul is outside of time (space time=space or volume/mass + time)


By default the soul HAS to be eternal.

Hell must be eternal as well.
Beyond Time and Space with Chuck Missler - YouTube

Time a Physical property - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

it is an exceptional claim, I agree. But no others explain why we are here in existence, and why there is pain and suffering and a whole host of other things that God answers.

Just because "God" is an answer, does not mean it's a correct, or remotely justified answer.

As far as the pain and suffering goes, that raises the problem of evil... which is contradictory to the concept of a loving benevolent God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay okay, just watch this debate, it will answer your questions:

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig - YouTube

No, I would like you to answer the question yourself, rather than just continually cut and pasting answers.

Expecting me to watch a two hour and twelve minute debate to receive an answer you should be able to provide, is ridiculous.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sadly enough, this is coming from someone who has no understanding of science, standards of evidence, or the scientific method at all.

The scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the best system we have devised to explain and understand the world, and universe around us.

Scientists put all their stock into the scientific method, as that's the tool used to determine scientific claims. It is the sole method by which science works.

Your assertion that the scientific method itself can't be verified scientifically is absurd... it is completely nonsensical, and a demonstration that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.


I would recommend you relax, develop some critical thinking skills and attempt to justify your own assertions, before you assert them as absolute truth. So far, you have done nothing but spread disinformation while remaining proudly and willfully ignorant of reality.

In light of the fact of the past several posts you have written, I will not ask anything more of you. I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views and pray you and your family may come to know Him and His overwhelming love and grace. I love you and wish you well.

May all things praise Him.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sadly enough, this is coming from someone who has no understanding of science, standards of evidence, or the scientific method at all.

The scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the best system we have devised to explain and understand the world, and universe around us.

Scientists put all their stock into the scientific method, as that's the tool used to determine scientific claims. It is the sole method by which science works.

Your assertion that the scientific method itself can't be verified scientifically is absurd... it is completely nonsensical, and a demonstration that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.


I would recommend you relax, develop some critical thinking skills and attempt to justify your own assertions, before you assert them as absolute truth. So far, you have done nothing but spread disinformation while remaining proudly and willfully ignorant of reality.

thats poisoning the well fallacy,

you can't say things like "go home and develop critical thinking skills"

 

[Dave Ellis]

God does not have a cause. Or he wouldn't be God.

so you honestly believe will all your heart that we came from absolutely nothing. No atoms, then all of a sudden there were adams. See this is what I mean that God is the only answer. And no it's not an argument from ignorance, the ignorance is on your end not knowing.

------------

This must be the typo of the year!!

"so you honestly believe will all your heart that we came from absolutely nothing. No atoms, then all of a sudden there were adams."

That's EXACTLY what the book of Genesis states!!

------------

To address your post now:

You are invoking special pleading to claim your god exists. You must demonstrate that he had no cause. You can't just assert it and claim it to be true because you can't think of a better alternative.

This is the proof by assertion, and argument from ignorance fallacies.


Secondly, when did I assert everything came from nothing? I never made that claim at all. Why are you asking me to address an argument I never made?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I would like you to answer the question yourself, rather than just continually cut and pasting answers.

Expecting me to watch a two hour and twelve minute debate to receive an answer you should be able to provide, is ridiculous.

two rather, I edited the original post to have two debates on there.

learning takes time.

many believe we lost the debate, see for yourself.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In light of the fact of the past several posts you have written, I will not ask anything more of you. I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views and pray you and your family may come to know Him and His overwhelming love and grace. I love you and wish you well.

May all things praise Him.

Fair enough, best of luck to you too.

Likewise, I hope one day you will come to realise the irrationality of religion, and "see the light" of critical, rational thought and the wonders it can lead you to.

Have a good night.

 

[createdtoworship]

Secondly, when did I assert everything came from nothing?

okay lets put you on the fireing wheel,

do you believe something created the universe, or that it came from nothing?

in the beginning that is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

thats poisoning the well fallacy,

you can't say things like "go home and develop critical thinking skills"

You have a great talent for asserting fallacies where there has been no fallacy committed. Poisoning the well implies I open a debate or argument by slandering, ridiculing or discrediting everything you are about to say.

Suggesting you develop your critical thinking skills after you have shown that you do not possess strong critical thinking skills is not poisoning the well, it's simply good advice.

 

[Dave Ellis]

two rather, I edited the original post to have two debates on there.

learning takes time.

many believe we lost the debate, see for yourself.

What is your aversion to answering questions? I'm not asking for the opinion of some website, or apologist... I'm asking why you believe what you believe.