Coming from nothing

[OrdinaryClay]

I never said that God was the material cause either, and I'm not quite certain how you read that in to my statement.

If God is the Efficient Cause then this is to say He causes the event of creation to occur.

 

[bhsmte]

So you reject all historical record as told by any deceased historian. That is a pretty radical and, might I say, irrational position to hold.

Are you familiar with the historical method and how historians go about determining what likely happened in the past?

 

[Dave Ellis]

If God is the Efficient Cause then this is to say He causes the event of creation to occur.

Yes, but if God existed, then there was never a true state of nothingness.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

And how would you determine the credibility of the witnesses, to be able to determine, if you believed their claim, that someone was raised from the dead?

If you were on a jury how would you determine the credibeility of the witnesses?

 

[bhsmte]

If you were on a jury how would you determine the credibeility of the witnesses?

Lack of bias, lack of motivation to tell a certain story, testimony that coincides with physical objective evidence, lack of contradiction in the story they tell.

 

[durangodawood]

If you were on a jury how would you determine the credibeility of the witnesses?

They appear before you on the stand, and are cross examined.

 

[bhsmte]

They appear before you on the stand, and are cross examined.

And, a skilled litigator would establish whether a claimed eye witness had any bias or motivation to tell a certain story. Also, whether they contradicted themselves or whether the story matches with physical evidence.

And by the way, the gospel accounts of Jesus being crucified and rising from the dead, do contradict themselves and tell somewhat different stories. In fact, Mark had numerous verses added to it, hundreds of years later, so it would align with the other gospel accounts and that is not exactly what I would call credible. Lastly, these accounts were penned by unknown authors, who wrote about these events, 40-70 years after Jesus died.

Not exactly what I would call quality historical material.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Lack of bias, lack of motivation to tell a certain story, testimony that coincides with physical objective evidence, lack of contradiction in the story they tell.

Also physical and temporal proximity to the event.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Are you familiar with the historical method and how historians go about determining what likely happened in the past?

Yes. Are you?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. Are you?

You bet.

Is it your opinion, the resurrection has been verified as credible by historians using the established historical method?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now is a good a time as any to remind people reading along that the 'supernatural' has no coherent, positive definition and no epistemology to speak of. As such, positing 'god' as the cause of anything is exactly as useful in gleaning actual information as positing 'magic'.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Yes, but if God existed, then there was never a true state of nothingness.

Nothing from a scientific standpoint is the lack of Physics, which means no physical laws existed. God is not the result of physical laws so the state of Nothing does not preclude the existence of God

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your statment is simply false.

Nooo...it simply doesn't correspond to your model of causality. In my model, entities are the cause of change in themselves and other entities. (Incidentally, I haven't spoken of "events".)

As I pointed out cuases deal with events not entities. Events are caused not entities.

Events are changes in entities.

In particle physics, an event refers to the results just after a fundamental interaction took place between subatomic particles, occurring in a very short time span, at a well-localized region of space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(particle_physics)

If events are caused, not entities, then how can there be such a thing as a "creation event"? What does that even mean? It is an entity that is created, not an "event" all by itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Lack of bias, lack of motivation to tell a certain story, testimony that coincides with physical objective evidence, lack of contradiction in the story they tell.

So you agree testimony can be held as evidence. That's good. Many atheists irrationally reject any testimony.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Now is a good a time as any to remind people reading along that the 'supernatural' has no coherent, positive definition and no epistemology to speak of.

There is no reason to believe your position. The supernatural can be defined very coherently.

The supernatural is well defined.

We are interested in two characteristics of events. Are they detectable and are they predictable. Natural events are either detectable and predictable or predictable but not detectable. A supernatural event caused by a free will agent is detectable and not-predictable. I’m using predictable in the sense that the event would not even be subject to a consistent statistical analysis of its behavior, ergo a random event is not supernatural

A supernatural cause with free will ...
1) obviously provides explanatory scope as it explains the universe,
2) provides predictive novelty since we have no reason for there to be something rather then nothing,
3) allows for testability because the best explanation can change any time based on the experimental underpinnings of our understanding of the universe,

As such, positing 'god' as the cause of anything is exactly as useful in gleaning actual information as positing 'magic'.

Claiming the universe came into being with no cause is equivalent to magic. Claiming the universe is past eternal despite science's claim to the contrary is irrational

 

[bhsmte]

So you agree testimony can be held as evidence. That's good. Many atheists irrationally reject any testimony.

Sure testimony is evidence, whether it is reliable evidence is a completely different issue.

Historians, who follow the historical method rely on the following to determine the likelihood of something did indeed happen in the past:

-Direct eye witness accounts of the events
-multiple eye witness accounts of events, which are not copied word for word, but also do not contradict each other
-Eye witnesses who are not biased or have motivation to tell a certain story
-Contemporary accounts of the same events that corroborate what the eye witnesses state
-physical evidence that corroborates what the eye witnesses state


There is more to it, but that is a basic summary. At the end of the day, a historian has to determine whether an event likely happened or not, based on following the historical method. Since miracles by nature, are the least likely explanation of any event, no legit historian, will ever claim Jesus rising from the grave is a historical event, because it is by nature, the least likely explanation.

The majority of NT historians are in agreement regarding the following, in which they can state with some level of confidence, these things happened:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, anything else is not considered historically credible and is theology instead of credible history and is taken on faith.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Nooo...it simply doesn't correspond to your model of causality. In my model, entities are the cause of change in themselves and other entities. (Incidentally, I haven't spoken of "events".)

Your definition is a pretend definition.

Events are changes in entities.

In particle physics, an event refers to the results just after a fundamental interaction took place between subatomic particles, occurring in a very short time span, at a well-localized region of space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(particle_physics)

This is a domain specific definition. In Markov Chains an Event is defined as simply a state change. This definition is the more general definition used by science in general.

If events are caused, not entities, then how can there be such a thing as a "creation event"? What does that even mean? It is an entity that is created, not an "event" all by itself.

Creation is a two state process.
Initial State: No physical laws existed.
Final State: The Laws of Nature, aka Physics existed.

Physics is the result of the creation event.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you reject all historical record as told by any deceased historian. That is a pretty radical and, might I say, irrational position to hold.

Not exactly. I reject supposed eyewitness accounts passed down through word of mouth through decades before finally being written down. Also, no person should look at history through only one source or perspective because humans are prone to exaggeration and self serving bias.

 

[bhsmte]

Not exactly. I reject supposed eyewitness accounts passed down through word of mouth through decades before finally being written down. Also, no person should look at history through only one source or perspective because humans are prone to exaggeration and self serving bias.

Precisely why historians look for multiple and contemporary sources in their work that are also without bias, as well as who wrote the stuff and when it was written.

The NT, does not do all that well when the historical method is applied.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no reason to believe your position. The supernatural can be defined very coherently.

The supernatural is well defined.

Go on...

We are interested in two characteristics of events. Are they detectable and are they predictable. Natural events are either detectable and predictable or predictable but not detectable. A supernatural event caused by a free will agent is detectable and not-predictable. I’m using predictable in the sense that the event would not even be subject to a consistent statistical analysis of its behavior, ergo a random event is not supernatural

A supernatural cause with free will ...
1) obviously provides explanatory scope as it explains the universe,
2) provides predictive novelty since we have no reason for there to be something rather then nothing,
3) allows for testability because the best explanation can change any time based on the experimental underpinnings of our understanding of the universe,

How does it explain the universe? How is it testable?