- Apr 4, 2014
- 319
- 15
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION?
Science of course seeks not to prove but to establish possibility or plausibility by weight of evidence. The possibility of a supernatural event can be assessed scientifically when those claims involve an interaction with the natural world. For example, claims about creation have been proven implausible by evolution and claims that the Grand Canyon were caused by the Flood of Noah have been proven implausible by Geology. Most importantly, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is a good reason to believe that evidence would be present if the claim is true. Christianity can't even offer evidence of Christ's existence as a real or divine person/entity so the issue of the Resurrection is actually irrelevant.
You aren't being asked to believe it at this point. You are being asked to explain it (ie how the community came to produce these texts).
That's easy for typical myths like Osiris.
It's not been done satisfactorily for Jesus.
I tried to answer your question about probability and the supernatural. PLEASE tell me how to disprove the resurrection myth of Osiris and how your methods are not effective for Jesus.
There were far too few ancient historians documenting what went on in outposts like jerusalem, far too few texts that were written that survived, etc, to expect anything.
But we are talking about perhaps the greatest event in human history. God returning to earth. There should be vast amounts of confirmed historical evidence-based on the volumes of local history that does survive relating mundane events in and around Jerusalem. Josephus and Tacitus were obviously not impressed by the events related by the Gospels. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews relates contemporary battles and political events in detail but no authentic record of the return of God to save humanity.
It's looking suspiciously like you do.
You got me. I will give you the last word then. Thanks for talking to me.
Your smokescreen covering up avoidance of the question is noted.HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION?
Science of course seeks not to prove but to establish possibility or plausibility by weight of evidence. The possibility of a supernatural event can be assessed scientifically when those claims involve an interaction with the natural world. For example, claims about creation have been proven implausible by evolution and claims that the Grand Canyon were caused by the Flood of Noah have been proven implausible by Geology. Most importantly, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is a good reason to believe that evidence would be present if the claim is true. Christianity can't even offer evidence of Christ's existence as a real or divine person/entity so the issue of the Resurrection is actually irrelevant.
The Osiris and Jesus stories are not like, and the texts conveying them are not like.You aren't being asked to believe it at this point. You are being asked to explain it (ie how the community came to produce these texts).
That's easy for typical myths like Osiris.
It's not been done satisfactorily for Jesus.
I tried to answer your question about probability and the supernatural. PLEASE tell me how to disprove the resurrection myth of Osiris and how your methods are not effective for Jesus.
It's more smokescreen to avoid the challenge presented to you: a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the early Christian texts and the community that produced them.
That shows enormous naivity about the level of documentation we have of the period. There is precious little contempory documentation on Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the known world at the time, let alone about what was going on at the time in Palestine.There were far too few ancient historians documenting what went on in outposts like jerusalem, far too few texts that were written that survived, etc, to expect anything.
But we are talking about perhaps the greatest event in human history. God returning to earth. There should be vast amounts of confirmed historical evidence-based on the volumes of local history that does survive relating mundane events in and around Jerusalem.
Josephus isn't an disinterested chronologer. He is writing noticably later - about the time the gospels are bring given their final form, and he is writing to serve his own agenda, same as anyone else. Early Christian claims don't fit that agenda.Josephus and Tacitus were obviously not impressed by the events related by the Gospels. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews relates contemporary battles and political events in detail but no authentic record of the return of God to save humanity.
It doesn't affect the conversation much, but it's interesting to note that we only have the texts of Josephus at all because the Christian church preserved and copied them, mostly because of the couple of tangential references to jesus.
Many are familiar with traditional and contemporary arguments for the existence of God such as the ontological, teleological, and pre-suppositional arguments (etc.) However, assuming that any one of these arguments are true, what suggests that Christians have the correct understanding of God. Are there any logical arguments supporting the existence of the Christian God that do not appeal to personal experience or the bible (since most religions contain these as well)?
I disagree that their is an objective and absolute moral standard..
If that was the case the right or wrong choice in all situations would be obvious.
Logical arguments are not needed when sufficient information already exists.
If sufficient information (evidence?) existed for the existence of the Abrahamic God then logical arguments supporting that information would exist as well.
Although I disagree with your kind on most theological issues, I respect those of you like yourself who have the bravery to commit to your beliefs. After all, if there is no God, there can be no objective moral values or duties. About the only thing you can do is argue for is a morality based on survival of the fittest. Of course, one could then argue that some cultures (those that are the fittest) should survive while we should let others perish, which is what Darwin taught and what Hitler tried to implement.
Darwin never taught that some species should survive over others any more than Einstein taught that the speed of light should be the cosmic speed limit. That is just the way it is. However, to suggest that we should apply natural selection to humanity is call the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that is good or beneficial. Sunlight is natural but we take precautions not to be overexposed to it. Applying an idea like survival of the fittest to humanity is a horrible idea even though it occurs naturally in the natural world.
Not that our dislike of what Hitler did proves theism, but I'm sure you realize that it's a sad possible consequence of naturalism.
You're right. Even if Hitler was an thiest it does not support theism. However, Hitler was not an athiest or naturalist-he was a Christian who had some very bizarre supernatural beliefs.
On that view, there's just no objective justification to call one action right and another wrong; at best, it boils down to what's convenient.
Even if the existence God is the only justification for morality (which I strongly disagree with) that does not suggest that the Christian God is the moral law giver.
But this is where I find a curious gap in your thinking. You seem to have some scientific background, so I'm wondering why you would ignore the obvious possibility that some people, let's say a pedophile for example, could purposefully deceive himself into thinking that "raping little girls may not be that bad after all"? This seems to be an irrational departure from an unbiased scientific investigation, seeing that self-deception (a human reaction employed when faced with undesirable realities) is recognized by psychologists, and looks suspiciously like a move made to justify what atheists want to believe.
Analytically, information and evidence are two different things, Alien444. One may entail the other, but the scope and specifics of each are not necessarily synonymous.
I can agree with that. Information is not necessarily evidence. I guess what I am curious about is that if we presuppose the existence in God is there a logical reason to believe in the Abrahamic God as the God? Furthermore, if there is no logical reason why doesn't one exist? I am not trying to lead someone into an argument that I already have prepared, I am just interested in how believers may answer this question.
That's perfectly fine, Alien444, and I appreciate that you are wanting to discuss these things.
There could be 'logical' reasons, but that is such a diverse concept. Are we talking about formal logic or informal logic? Are we appealing to Deduction, or Induction, or even Abduction? Will we need to utilize syllogisms, or focus on coherency of propositions, or predicates, and/or modalities.
Of course, we could attempt to utilize some of the kinds of logic mentioned above, but the problem is that by doing so, not only will we most likely come up short in discovering human conclusions about religion, we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine (which is why, in the case of Christianity, we should predict that human logic should fail if used as a measure and/or means of clarification regarding the Divine.) ...Thus, we are left with ancient, but sufficient, information by which to live and worship. In sum, with the epistemological limitations left in place, it seems God has presented to humanity (or each individual) a 'kind' of Rorschach Test where each of us will likely 'see' and 'respond' in different ways. Our visions could even change about what we 'think' we are seeing over time. And that is where we are.
That's perfectly fine, Alien444, and I appreciate that you are wanting to discuss these things.
There could be 'logical' reasons, but that is such a diverse concept. Are we talking about formal logic or informal logic? Are we appealing to Deduction, or Induction, or even Abduction? Will we need to utilize syllogisms, or focus on coherency of propositions, or predicates, and/or modalities.
Of course, we could attempt to utilize some of the kinds of logic mentioned above, but the problem is that by doing so, not only will we most likely come up short in discovering human conclusions about religion, we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine (which is why, in the case of Christianity, we should predict that human logic should fail if used as a measure and/or means of clarification regarding the Divine.) ...Thus, we are left with ancient, but sufficient, information by which to live and worship. In sum, with the epistemological limitations left in place, it seems God has presented to humanity (or each individual) a 'kind' of Rorschach Test where each of us will likely 'see' and 'respond' in different ways. Our visions could even change about what we 'think' we are seeing over time. And that is where we are.
Darwin never taught that some species should survive over others ....
Really? Do you think Jesus would call Hitler a Christian?Hitler ... was a Christian who had some very bizarre supernatural beliefs.
Even if the existence God is the only justification for morality (which I strongly disagree with) that does not suggest that the Christian God is the moral law giver..
You may have to clarify for me a bit. All atheism is is an examination of existing evidence for and against the existence of God and a conclusion that belief in God is not reasonable based on the evidence presented. No more no less.
By the way PhiloVoid. Could you refer me to the biblical verse(es) that you are referring to when saying "we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine"? Thanks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?