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.
Maybe becuase you are both on the same side. LOL
Same with evolution
We're not on the same side, though we have some limited agreement. I don't really have a dog in the fight, because while I accept evolution as true it's not something I'm concerned with convincing others of the truth of.Maybe becuase you are both on the same side. LOL
No, evolution depends on a posteriori reasoning. It's about creating a provisional model to explain observed phenomena, and then adjust that model as deficiencies are exposed. It's not a matter of truth or falsity, but whether or not the model produces viable predictions that prove themselves out. As a model, it's neither provably true nor provably false. It simply provides a high degree of utility and is generally accepted as acccurate because it has repeatedly generated accurate predictions.Same with evolution
It's science. There is no place in science for the supernatural. I'm sorry that is a problem for you.I didn't take that as a comment of the supernatural supervision of biology, as I make no insistence on supernatural questions entering into biology as a discipline. It doesn't have the tools to address such questions, but to take a lack of ability to address the question as a denial of such is just as inappropriate as shoehorning it in through ID. It simply is silent on such matters.
It also isn't the topic of the thread, or sub-forum and is hard to do without venturing into the forbidden land of "general apologetics", which I am trying very hard to do.What is and isn't "credible" requires far more subjective analysis than has been done in this thread, and restricting the definition to a type of evidence that is silent on the matter is a rather spurious restriction making it speak where it properly can't.
I maintain that the circumstantial case for it is considerable, and no one has provided the sleightest rebuttal to my contention other than to complain that it in part depends on Biblical data. There seems to be a lack of comprehension on what precisely I am arguing, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem is that actual historians (as opposed to "biblical scholars") have almost nothing to work with. There are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive. If it weren't for the fact that he is claimed to be a rather minor figure in an unimportant region in a time when comprehensive record keeping did not exist. (No articles in the Decapolis Times, no court records, etc.). If we had no records of Joseph Smith before stories of him were told in Utah, I'd be inclined to think he was made up by Brigham Young. Since those kinds of records that clearly demonstrate the "career" of Joseph Smith did not exist in the 1st century we can't infer anything from Jesus failing to make a contemporary impression. This is the only thing that brings me to the "more likely an actual person" position.I wasn't "guffawing". Mythicism is regarded as an extremely fringe position among those who study the matter, because it relies on misconceptions about how historical research is conducted and the kinds of evidence that are reasonably expected in historical research.
Perhaps you should stop trying to evaluate my positions or motivations. You keep getting them wrong. It isn't apathy, nor even a lack of interest. I just said that I likely hadn't studied the subject as much as NxNW. I have not read any specialized books on the topic, perhaps he has. As to these "non-historical considerations" my position on the divinity does not influence my assessment of existence. Certainly not as much as it would for a believer who can't contemplate the "non-existence" position.All that means is you have an uninformed opinion due to apathy. That doesn't make mythicism more real, and the suspicion regarding Jesus' existence is likely motivated more by non-historical considerations that poison the well, so to speak.
This isn't about everything. It is about a scientific theory (Darwinian evolution and successors), questions of supernaturalism are irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories.Fair enough, and I agree there isn't much point to making natural/unnatural distinctions since the categories have no bearing on such things other than to bias the questions. Whether the resurrection occurred or not can be treated academically to an extent, even if not scientifically, and pretending that all evidence must conform to scientific standards eliminates far more than simply "supernatural" questions. In so far as it is susceptible to academic consideration, the applicable evidence is the kinds history deals with not the kinds that science deals with. Certainly the discussion has gotten far afield from the topic of the thread, but that was not simply my doing.
This seems to misunderstand the types of evidence that is typical in history, because there is more evidence of Jesus in more contemporaneous form than a number of historical figures. The objections and aspersions about whether Jesus existed are purely the result of bias, and not based in an understanding of the types of historical evidences that are typically found. Atheist scholars have produced lists of historical figures whose existence is less secure than Jesus', which nobody would seriously entertain questioning. To claim "there are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive" is a specious objection because such documents are vanishingly rare for most historical figures, particularly ones in antiquity. So if such a thing is a problem for Jesus, then its a problem for history in general. That you express questions is more demonstrative of your bias than anything else.The problem is that actual historians (as opposed to "biblical scholars") have almost nothing to work with. There are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive. If it weren't for the fact that he is claimed to be a rather minor figure in an unimportant region in a time when comprehensive record keeping did not exist. (No articles in the Decapolis Times, no court records, etc.). If we had no records of Joseph Smith before stories of him were told in Utah, I'd be inclined to think he was made up by Brigham Young. Since those kinds of records that clearly demonstrate the "career" of Joseph Smith did not exist in the 1st century we can't infer anything from Jesus failing to make a contemporary impression. This is the only thing that brings me to the "more likely an actual person" position.
You may not, but that poster confirmed they were a mythicistMythicists also tend to have an alternative story about what/who Jesus was in the early Christianity. I certainly don't find any of those claims particularly compelling.
It certainly appears as much, given the fringe nature that questioning the existence of Jesus tends to be regarded with by scholars both atheist and Christian. There is no serious reason to question the existence of Jesus, and typically the non-existence position is built on false pretenses such as your objection about a lack of documentation while he was alive. That we have documents within 30 years of his life is more than we have on a number of far more prominent(historically speaking) figures.Perhaps you should stop trying to evaluate my positions or motivations. You keep getting them wrong. It isn't apathy, nor even a lack of interest. I just said that I likely hadn't studied the subject as much as NxNW. I have not read any specialized books on the topic, perhaps he has. As to these "non-historical considerations" my position on the divinity does not influence my assessment of existence. Certainly not as much as it would for a believer who can't contemplate the "non-existence" position.
So you say, but if it were purely a matter of scientific theories I suspect you wouldn't be spending your time on a website called Christian forums to discuss such things.This isn't about everything. It is about a scientific theory (Darwinian evolution and successors), questions of supernaturalism are irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories.
If open and honest debate means engaging with opposing views, I’ve tried and I believe I do have a good understanding of the evolutionists viewpoint. But instead of clear answers, I was handed 50-page technical documents. I looked through them and didn’t find the specific explanations I asked for. If the evidence is so strong, it shouldn’t be hard to summarize it plainly.
Blessing and enjoyed the debate with you guys.
I made no aspersions.This seems to misunderstand the types of evidence that is typical in history, because there is more evidence of Jesus in more contemporaneous form than a number of historical figures. The objections and aspersions about whether Jesus existed are purely the result of bias, and not based in an understanding of the types of historical evidences that are typically found.
What are these lists titled? "Historical Figures less well Attested than Jesus, by A. N. Atheist". Are you talking about studies of historical figures published without reference to Jesus or comparative historical documentation, or are we talking about lists compiled from secular histories by Christian apologists.Atheist scholars have produced lists of historical figures whose existence is less secure than Jesus', which nobody would seriously entertain questioning.
That's not my point or what I wrote.To claim "there are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive" is a specious objection because such documents are vanishingly rare for most historical figures, particularly ones in antiquity. So if such a thing is a problem for Jesus, then its a problem for history in general.
Your "bias detector" is showing.That you express questions is more demonstrative of your bias than anything else.
And I've been trying to demonstrate the difference an active belief in a non-historical alternative and having serious doubts about historicity.You may not, but that poster confirmed they were a mythicist
There are other kinds of scholars. A better split would be Christian versus secular. Christian scholars do their work *as Christians* while secular scholars (regardless of their own religion) do not consider their own religious position.It certainly appears as much, given the fringe nature that questioning the existence of Jesus tends to be regarded with by scholars both atheist and Christian.
Sure there are given that the *only* stories about the life of Jesus are deeply theological in nature. You see an objection I DIDN'T make. Of course I don't expect birth certificates, press reports, or trial records. That was my point, there is a difference between the first half of the first century and of the 19th century. Though that no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.There is no serious reason to question the existence of Jesus, and typically the non-existence position is built on false pretenses such as your objection about a lack of documentation while he was alive.
The religiously motivated version of his story also takes a few decades to show up, which puts doubts into the accuracy of the portrayal of events.That we have documents within 30 years of his life is more than we have on a number of far more prominent(historically speaking) figures.
So you say,
I came here to discuss pseudoscience like ID/creationism. It is entirely about countering it. My opposition to such stuff hasn't changed when I stopped believing. I was an anti-creationist Christian, though I had no idea this site existed. That's what I came here for. Unfortunately people keep bringing in unrelated religious issues into the discussions.but if it were purely a matter of scientific theories I suspect you wouldn't be spending your time on a website called Christian forums to discuss such things.
For many of the subjects we discuss here, a good review paper is quite appropriate and since those kinds of papers tend to be aimed at broader audiences and are more accessible to non-specialist audiences.Summaries NEVER equate to a presentation of convincing evidence. Ever.
Some of us didn't make that decision for ourselves.Would you have made a decision to follow Jesus if all you had was the letter to the Galatians, and only that to refer to? I doubt you would have.
I've been trying to convince my collaborators that we should stop writing 25+ page papers with high text density. (Quit trying to throw in the kitchen sink guys.)For my part, I only want 50-page++ technical documents. Or else people can shut up and leave me alone.
I prefer bilaterianism as I like the symmetry of things.Moreover, I have a strict requirement for bilateralism.
What this means is that if you want me to engage your arguments and sources, then you need to equally engage mine. If you can't or won't do that, and do it with educated intelligence and acumen, then get out of my face.
It's that simple.
No, there is still no opinion. There is nothing for science to have an opinion about. Just an account in a book, no physical evidence to examine to determine the nature of the event, no examinable evidence that the miracle occured at all.Love how your tune changes. Certainly, the book describes events that are questionable in many instances. But that doesn't mean it can't be used in certain ways to establish material facts. But what happened to the silence of science on miracles? Suddenly, there's an opinion?
You wrote, “no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.” Mathew was not a chronicler? If you only accept chroniclers without an agenda, then you don’t think much of the study of history. Name one chronicler before the mid-1800s that did not have agenda. I can only think of one: Pliny the Elder, but I’m sure you can think of more.I made no aspersions.
What are these lists titled? "Historical Figures less well Attested than Jesus, by A. N. Atheist". Are you talking about studies of historical figures published without reference to Jesus or comparative historical documentation, or are we talking about lists compiled from secular histories by Christian apologists.
That's not my point or what I wrote.
Your "bias detector" is showing.
And I've been trying to demonstrate the difference an active belief in a non-historical alternative and having serious doubts about historicity.
There are other kinds of scholars. A better split would be Christian versus secular. Christian scholars do their work *as Christians* while secular scholars (regardless of their own religion) do not consider their own religious position.
Sure there are given that the *only* stories about the life of Jesus are deeply theological in nature. You see an objection I DIDN'T make. Of course I don't expect birth certificates, press reports, or trial records. That was my point, there is a difference between the first half of the first century and of the 19th century. Though that no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.
The religiously motivated version of his story also takes a few decades to show up, which puts doubts into the accuracy of the portrayal of events.
I came here to discuss pseudoscience like ID/creationism. It is entirely about countering it. My opposition to such stuff hasn't changed when I stopped believing. I was an anti-creationist Christian, though I had no idea this site existed. That's what I came here for. Unfortunately people keep bringing in unrelated religious issues into the discussions.
Matthew was not a contemporary. He wrote 40 years after the ministry of Jesus. His work is also mostly based on a similarly aged text also written by a non-witness, non-contemporary derived from the internal tales of the community of followers.You wrote, “no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.” Mathew was not a chronicler?
Pliny is good. There is also Philo. I'm sure there are a couple others. The ministry must have been reasonable small or unimportant enough to be noticed, but it is hard to quantify what is "too small". Around the time gospels are written, then external observers do start to notice and mention the movement, including Pliny the Younger.If you only accept chroniclers without an agenda, then you don’t think much of the study of history. Name one chronicler before the mid-1800s that did not have agenda. I can only think of one: Pliny the Elder, but I’m sure you can think of more.
I know the theory, but I will go with the traditional approach that Mathew wrote a few decades after Jesus, but he was contemporary with Christ. This was Origen’s opinion.Matthew was not a contemporary. He wrote 40 years after the ministry of Jesus. His work is also mostly based on a similarly aged text also written by a non-witness, non-contemporary derived from the internal tales of the community of followers.
Pliny is good. There is also Philo. I'm sure there are a couple others. The ministry must have been reasonable small or unimportant enough to be noticed, but it is hard to quantify what is "too small". Around the time gospels are written, then external observers do start to notice and mention the movement, including Pliny the Younger.
But none of this is germane and only came up because a poster wanting to bolster supernatural causation (for creationism, one would think) cited the "well testified" supernatural aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. Whether it was or was not of a supernatural or divine nature, it still is not "well documented" contemporaneously.
If it helps, I won't be posting much here, if at all. Almost everything I've posted has been ignored and I just don't have the time each day to try and elbow my way past all the other science advocates just so I can debate with a creationist who's doing little more than repeating decades old talking points.NOTE: I’ll be stepping away from this thread. It’s unfortunate that instead of engaging in open and honest debate, some prefer to silence others by reporting them. It seems when the words of Jesus are challenged, and the response isn't easily answered, the next move is to shut down the conversation. That’s not how healthy discussion works. God bless those who genuinely seek the truth.
40-50 years would be "a few decades after Jesus".I know the theory, but I will go with the traditional approach that Mathew wrote a few decades after Jesus, but he was contemporary with Christ. This was Origen’s opinion.
not a shift. things are that uncertain.I’ll have to read Philo. You seem to have moved from Jesus may not existed to Jesus existed but we don’t have proof of supernatural events. Am I reading you wrong?
I can remember many people and events that happened 40 years ago. They are much less impressive than people raising from the dead.40-50 years would be "a few decades after Jesus".
not a shift. things are that uncertain.
It just isn't. Neo-Darwinism is not a religion for any part of the scientific community and some parts don't care about it at all. As for the religious community, creationism is not as important as you claim. I went most of my Christian existence with out meeting any Christians who cared about it.The problem is, neo-Darwinism is as much a religion for much of the scientific community as creationism is for much of the religious community. So the "discussion" ends up being fundamentally irrational.
As for the religious community, creationism is not as important as you claim. I went most of my Christian existence with out meeting any Christians who cared about it.
Nor me. There are more Christians concerned with the Gospel of Christ instead of a literal Genesis.That doesn't surprise me at all.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?It just isn't. Neo-Darwinism is not a religion for any part of the scientific community and some parts don't care about it at all. As for the religious community, creationism is not as important as you claim. I went most of my Christian existence with out meeting any Christians who cared about it.
Agenda driven, cliche ridden, evidence free assertions have no place in science, in religion, in philosophy, or in interesting posts on internet forums. When you post something of substance I shall be happy to respond.I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?
Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one. Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma - leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory. The tactics used by the keepers of the neo-Darwinian paradigm are precisely those used by the creationist community to preserve the creationist paradigm from challenge, which is why the "dialogue" ends up being mostly irrational. In those scientific disciplines where evolution is most relevant, it is an article of faith considerably out of proportion to the actual evidence and many problems. Try telling the scientists in the ID movement that evolution doesn't have the status of quasi-religious dogma.
I, of course, don't know about your Christian experience, but certainly a high level of skepticism toward evolutionary theory exists within much of the Christian community. I would say it's more "doubt about evolution" than "rabid creationism." I find that large numbers of Christians, like me, sense that current evolutionary theory is missing some critical explanatory link. It would help, of course, if there were anything like a scientifically plausible theory of the origin of life - that now being a bigger mystery than it was thought to be 50 years ago. I find some of the "math" to be most compelling - i.e., 4.5 billion years, which seems like a long time when you're stuck in the checkout line at Safeway, not being nearly long enough for life to have arisen and evolved in the manner that evolutionary theory posits.
It's not that I find evolutionary theory threatening to my biblical worldview, because I really don't have a creationist biblical worldview. It's that I find it an inadequate explanation that seems increasingly outdated as other disciplines like cosmology and physics advance. The fact that the scientific community clings to it, kicking and screaming, seems like precisely what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
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?