Evolutionists and credentialism

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Erm, you didn't answer the question. The answer should probably have been "because they believed they saw Jesus". There is historical evidnece that Jesus once lived and that people claimed to have seen him after he died.

What historical evidence outside the Bible? The only reference I have ever seen was to a passage in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in a version that was heavily edited by a Christian monk and almost certainly at least partly fabricated.

 

[Markus6]

Sound waves will be produced whether anyone is there it hear them or not.

Assuming the laws of physics operate the same when not observed as they do when observed, which, of course, no one has ever observed.

Here is the definition of sound.
1. a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
d. Such sensations considered as a group.

A sound is produced by the falling tree whether anyone is there to hear it or not. You can make restricted definitions of sound such as c above the require an observer but the general definition subsumes the specific.

So the answer (assuming the same physics applies) according to THE definition is that the tree produces b-sound, but not c-sound.

Philosophy can get pretty silly sometimes and this is a case in point.

You guys need to free your minds. Srsly.

 

[Michael1975]

What historical evidence outside the Bible? The only reference I have ever seen was to a passage in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in a version that was heavily edited by a Christian monk and almost certainly at least partly fabricated.

Well I was told this by my RE teacher but I guess that I can't get you to believe me with just that. What I will say is that no-one has denied the existence of Jesus. Like in the debate I posted, atheists challenging Christianity do not question his existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

If you read the beginning part you'll see what I'm saying.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Assuming the laws of physics operate the same when not observed as they do when observed, which, of course, no one has ever observed.

Do you have any evidence that this in not a valid assumption?

So the answer (assuming the same physics applies) according to THE definition is that the tree produces b-sound, but not c-sound.

Which is sound. (It also produces (a) sound and if there is any living thing with auditory organs around c sound as well. Does "anyone" to hear include animals or not?

You guys need to free your minds. Srsly.

I suppose it would be nice to be free from the necessity of logical thought.

 

[Chalnoth]

How do you know that unobserved trees cause pressure waves to emanate in the same way as observed trees?

Because we understand physics.

It also depends on your definition of the word 'sound'. Are pressure waves 'sound' or does it have to be heard to be sound?

The physics definition is that a pressure wave is sound. Any definition that requires an observer to be there is useless.

This is philosophy not science, leave the assumptions that you are required to make in order to perform science at the door. This is a genuine philosophical question and an attitude that rejects anyone who spends time actually thinking about this as 'ignorant of physics' is severely unhelpful.

Meh, there are a lot of really, really stupid things that some philosophers go for. This is one of them. Sure, there are good things in philosophy, but arguing over definitions of words when perfectly useful, valid definitions are readily available is just pointless.

 

[Markus6]

Do you have any evidence that this in not a valid assumption?

It's an assumption, it may be a very useful one but recognising our assumptions is very important in engineering (particularily) and science. Philosophy can consider some of the basic assumptions we are forced to make.

Which is sound. (It also produces (a) sound and if there is any living thing with auditory organs around c sound as well. Does "anyone" to hear include animals or not?

I dunno, did the squirrel hear it?

I suppose it would be nice to be free from the necessity of logical thought.

Ah yes, science is the only way to do logical thought. Philosophy is silly. How's that ivory tower working out for you?

 

[keith99]

If there is no person in hte forest is the tree really there?

If that person isn't me why should I believe their report?

 

[Markus6]

Because we understand physics.

No, because you make an assumption.

The physics definition is that a pressure wave is sound. Any definition that requires an observer to be there is useless.

Because observers never effect phenomena? Is there no point in thinking about whether observed phenomena are different from unobserved phenomena? Does the act of observation have any effect?

 

[Chalnoth]

No, because you make an assumption.

No, the assumption would be that the laws of physics are different when we are not there. That would require the injection of some fantastic new physical law that is wildly different from anything we've ever observed.

Because observers never effect phenomena? Is there no point in thinking about whether observed phenomena are different from unobserved phenomena? Does the act of observation have any effect?

Depends upon what situation you're talking about. In this situation any observer effects are vastly too small to make any reasonable difference. The presence of an observer has small effects on how the sound waves bounce around and are absorbed, and this sort of effect is noticeable, say, in a concert hall. But it is completely irrelevant when we're talking about the middle of the forest and a single person.

 

[Michael1975]

What historical evidence outside the Bible? The only reference I have ever seen was to a passage in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in a version that was heavily edited by a Christian monk and almost certainly at least partly fabricated.

I was told this by my RE teacher but I guess that doesn't count.
What I will say is that, like in the video I posted, even atheists who have studied the history of Jesus can agree he existed, that he was a egarded as a healer and was sentenced to death by crucificxion. My RE teacher told me there were files on him when he was sentenced to death which included all of those above.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I was told this by my RE teacher but I guess that doesn't count.
What I will say is that, like in the video I posted, even atheists who have studied the history of Jesus can agree he existed, that he was a egarded as a healer and was sentenced to death by crucificxion. My RE teacher told me there were files on him when he was sentenced to death which included all of those above.

I definitely believe that Jesus existed. I just don't think people should claim there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence when it doesn't exist.

 

[Chalnoth]

Erm, you didn't answer the question. The answer should probably have been "because they believed they saw Jesus". There is historical evidnece that Jesus once lived and that people claimed to have seen him after he died. The others don't have historical evidence of them happening. In fact, i'm not sure about the Muslim one. However, I do know that the Bible is more reliable than the Koran.

Hell, some eastern mystics have thousands of witnesses alive today professing to have seen them perform various amazing feats. This is nothing special.

But no, there is zero historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. There is lots of evidence of people believing this, but people believing something fantastic doesn't make for evidence. People incorrectly believe fantastic things all the time. So yes, I think I did answer the question. You asked why they thought it was true. My response was it does not matter. It was a myth believed by many. People believe incorrect myths all the time.

 

[Chalnoth]

I was told this by my RE teacher but I guess that doesn't count.
What I will say is that, like in the video I posted, even atheists who have studied the history of Jesus can agree he existed, that he was a egarded as a healer and was sentenced to death by crucificxion. My RE teacher told me there were files on him when he was sentenced to death which included all of those above.

Well, yes. That's all well and dandy. It is perfectly plausible that Jesus was the starter of a Jewish cult that later became Christianity. The problem is, the evidence for this is so thin that it is also conceivable that he never existed at all, that Christianity was started by somebody else (such as, perhaps, Paul).

 

[Tomk80]

You are confusing Creationism with Christianity. The flood has nothing to do with the earth being created. Btw, what evidence are you talking about exactly?

I'm not. You asked when creationism was falsified, not Christianity. I never said anything about Christianity. Usually creationism is used to denote those people that hold a literalist stance on the bible.
I don't know what evidence Lyell brought to the table specifically, I just know that he was the first to publish why creationist theories of that time were not correct. For that evidence there have been a few good threads around lately, perhaps you could check those out?

That may be, but my original post on this matter was to say that Jesus exists, not that I believe that everything we don't see never happened. I also don't think Baggins believed this either. If you look back, it looks like he said it to ridicule his teacher who believed this logic.

He said this to ridicule LogicalThinker. Problem was that you made your assertion directly after that, so that confused the flow of conversation.

Saying they might have been bad philosophers is a very big and unsupported assumption. This debate was done in front of 3000 people. I am sure that good philosophers would have been hired for this debate.

As I said, it was the professional debate judges who voted depending on debate tactics, which counts for how convincing their arguments seemed when delivered. The 5 philosophers judged on context. The evidence for Habermas' side of the argument was stronger and the philosophers picked up on this.

I have just watched the debate. To be very honest, I find the 'historical' arguments that the Habermas' makes in it rubbish. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason he won is because Flew was even worse. He let pass way to many logical and historical fallacies, of which I think Habermas' made at least one every three sentences. Sorry, but count me unimpressed by that video.

 

[Michael1975]

Hell, some eastern mystics have thousands of witnesses alive today professing to have seen them perform various amazing feats. This is nothing special.

But no, there is zero historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. There is lots of evidence of people believing this, but people believing something fantastic doesn't make for evidence. People incorrectly believe fantastic things all the time. So yes, I think I did answer the question. You asked why they thought it was true. My response was it does not matter. It was a myth believed by many. People believe incorrect myths all the time.

People performimg tricks today isn't the same as them happening at 20AD. There wasn't the same things sround today which could have been used to decieve that many people. Plus, not even anyone today can be resurrected after being pronounced dead using tricks.

There is not zero evidence for his resurrection. Did you watch the video?
Finally, it does not matter is not a suitable reply for my question. Try again.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not. You asked when creationism was falsified, not Christianity. I never said anything about Christianity. Usually creationism is used to denote those people that hold a literalist stance on the bible.
I don't know what evidence Lyell brought to the table specifically, I just know that he was the first to publish why creationist theories of that time were not correct. For that evidence there have been a few good threads around lately, perhaps you could check those out?

Evangelical Christian Geologist Davis Young has a very good page on early geological thought called the History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth. I know it has been posted here before but I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject.

 

[Michael1975]

I definitely believe that Jesus existed. I just don't think people should claim there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence when it doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Why would his existence be accepted by scholars who do not use the bible as evidence? There must be something else documented proving it, as my teacher said.

 

[Tomk80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Why would his existence be accepted by scholars who do not use the bible as evidence? There must be something else documented proving it, as my teacher said.

Who says those people do not use the bible as evidence? I am unaware of any such scholars. Perhpas one could conclude that historians at the time, such as Josephus, noted the early group of Christians and described them and that based on that, it is likely that he existed. Do with that whatever you like.

This also neglects the authors who say Jesus is not a historical figure. They also use the bible as evidence, especially the contradictions and incompatibility of the bible with other historical sources.

 

[Chalnoth]

People performimg tricks today isn't the same as them happening at 20AD. There wasn't the same things sround today which could have been used to decieve that many people. Plus, not even anyone today can be resurrected after being pronounced dead using tricks.

So? Claims of miracles were even more common back then (per capita, at least). Sure, the means of trickery may have gotten more sophisticated (tough few tricksters take advantage), but so has peoples' skepticism. Additionally, there were groups of people around that time who, for example, fully believed that Homer's epics The Iliad and The Odyssey were historical.

There is not zero evidence for his resurrection. Did you watch the video?

Yes, I did, some time ago. And my feeling on the film is the same as Frumious Bandersnatch's. I'd rather not go through it again.

Finally, it does not matter is not a suitable reply for my question. Try again.

Why not? I honestly do not care why people believed in it. It requires no explanation, because there are plenty of reasons that people could have believed in it that don't require it to have actually happened. People could have been convinced by a charismatic speaker (e.g. Paul). People could have heard of a crucifixion survivor (which has been known to happen) by word of mouth, and dramatically twisted the story into some savior figure as the story was passed on. It could have been pure fiction that some people started taking seriously. The possibilities are endless, and the evidence far, far too scant to know exactly why these people were fooled.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Why would his existence be accepted by scholars who do not use the bible as evidence? There must be something else documented proving it, as my teacher said.

Not nesessarily. I suggest you read the article carefully and look for evidence that does not come from the Gospels. Try to find some direct extrabiblical sources. I think you will find that I am right. I haven't time to read all of it now but I predict that if you read it carefully you will see the Gospels referred to over and over but very little else of substance.

ADDED IN EDT: Remember, I do believe that Jesus existed. I just don't think that non existant or highly dubious evidence should be quoted as definitive proof of his existence.