Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

You forgot me.

Sorry about that!

 

[AV1611VET]

Do we agree there's nothing in scripture about tree rings?

Yes.

Ditto for ice cores and a host of other things science uses to date how long things have been in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I understand it, he's saying God created all that with the appearance of a history ...

Wow -- just wow.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes.

Ditto for ice cores and a host of other things science uses to date how long things have been in existence.

Then none of these speculations are scriptural.

Wow -- just wow.

You said yourself that you believe God created the tree with 50 rings in it even though it's really 0 years old. Since we use tree rings to determine age and history, that means God would have created the tree with an embedded history that didn't actually occur.

 

[BCP1928]

As I understand it, he's saying God created all that with the appearance of a history but that history never actually occurred. That's why I think "embedded appearance of age" is an appropriate term.

Aw, now you've hurt AV's feelings. It's more like when you fast-forward a tape to get to the part you want to listen to. The preceding part is really there in all it's length, it just didn't take up any actual time to listen to.

 

[dlamberth]

As I understand it, he's saying God created all that with the appearance of a history but that history never actually occurred. That's why I think "embedded appearance of age" is an appropriate term.

I guess after all of these years, I just don't get this point. When working with geological events there is often a clear history of event progression that get us from point A to point B. How is that any different than the age progression that AV's embedded age argues?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some things work better old.

Like aged cheese has advantages over fresh cheese.

And some things won't work, unless it's old.

Like the sun.

So, as far as you understand your theoretical position and however seemingly fantastical it may be to the rest of us, would you say that you think it is akin to a sort of Simulation Theory (for the sake of a loose analogy)?

I'm just wondering.

Not that I know of.

This verse says He made the earth old ...

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

... but it doesn't say why.

I would think why is obvious.

Well, I tend to interpret 2 Peter 3:5 in a different way than you do, but if that's your reading of it..............ok then.

 

[AV1611VET]

You said yourself that you believe God created the tree with 50 rings in it even though it's really 0 years old.

Do you remember me saying this?

IN MY OPINION, none of the trees in existence at the end of the Creation Week had any tree rings; unless they were detrimental to the tree's age.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, as far as you understand your theoretical position and however seemingly fantastical it may seem to the rest of us,

Do you feel you understand it enough to even be fascinated by it?

 

[BCP1928]

Do you feel you understand it enough to even be fascinated by it?

Many things are fascinating, even the bizarre. The main problem is that we don't see a reason for it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you feel you understand it enough to even be fascinated by it?

Probably not, other than to add it to the pantheon of multiple interpretations of Genesis chapter 1 (&2-3) that I already have.

Which is part of the reason I say, "Got Embedded?? Ok, enjoy!"

 

[dlamberth]

Many things are fascinating, even the bizarre. The main problem is that we don't see a reason for it.

The only thing I think it does is to make God out to be a deceiver.

 

[River Jordan]

Do you remember me saying this?

Ok then, it looks like you have everyone thoroughly confused (which might be your goal, who knows) so since it has no basis in either scripture or science I'll adopt @2PhiloVoid 's approach. Have fun with whatever

 

[Kylie]

Not at all, its simply that there's nothing challenging to explain about their origins.

Again with the whole "It doesn't matter" attitude...

"Biblical scholars"? There's a pretty wide amount of disagreement, though I suspect I know a few of the ones you prefer(and why you prefer them). And those "certainties" are enough to raise the challenges that I'm bringing up, because the question is how did a crucified man gain such a following that people were willing to go to the grave saying that He rose from the dead and walked among them?

That's getting quite a way off topic, isn't it?

Not that they missed, but that they dismissed because of their presuppositions.

Then perhaps you can present it for us then?

Nope, the origin is in how the apostles came to that belief. Unless you believe that Jesus rose from the dead to proclaim that message to them, that is....I read too fast, this is supposed to be about Muhammad isn't it?

No, it's supposed to be about treating both equally. But you don't.

You say, "Christianity got started because Jesus came to Earth and performed miracles and spread a religion of peace and love, and his followers saw him perform miracles. When Jesus was crucified, they were such fervent and devout believers that they were willing to lay down their lives for their beautiful faith. On the other hand, Islam started because there was a delusional guy, maybe? I dunno."

That's hardly treating both faiths equally, is it?

What more needs to be said? What does that not explain?

By that logic, I could say that the story of Jesus was an embellishment of earlier stories and the events described never actually happened. And that would also explain everything. But you would disagree with that, wouldn't you?

The fact that you find it to be satisfactory does not obligate anyone else to find it satisfactory, particularly when you have been treating this topic with a double standard.

 

[Fervent]

Again with the whole "It doesn't matter" attitude...

Do you find anything unreasonable about explaining that a belief that originates with a single individual and depends entirely upon that individual is likely explainable entirely in terms of their psychology? What more explanation is needed? What missing facts or details?

That's getting quite a way off topic, isn't it?

Nope, it's perfectly on topic because the issue is a matter of what we find to be authoritative sources. Only listening to those who agree with us is going to give us the impression of a consensus that doesn't exist.

Then perhaps you can present it for us then?

No need, they've already been discussed in this thread. Early creedal statements that defy legendary development not only because of how rapidly they developed but more importantly that the supposed "legendary" material appears to be the historic core that legends would have been built around. The empty tomb, which is only dismissed by secular scholars because if the tomb were truly found empty it would be very inconvenient to their beliefs. Yet their dismissal of such evidence is purely on the presupposition and not on any sort of textual or historic evidence.

No, it's supposed to be about treating both equally. But you don't.

I do, you don't. I look at the history of both, and in one case there is a readily available explanation that requires no speculation and in the other there isn't.

You say, "Christianity got started because Jesus came to Earth and performed miracles and spread a religion of peace and love, and his followers saw him perform miracles. When Jesus was crucified, they were such fervent and devout believers that they were willing to lay down their lives for their beautiful faith. On the other hand, Islam started because there was a delusional guy, maybe? I dunno."

When did I say that? Yet another strawman.

That's hardly treating both faiths equally, is it?

I look at the historical documents of both, and recognize that without some authentic historical core to the resurrection there is no good explanation for the historical details. On the other hand, there is a readily available explanation for Islam in the psychology of a single man.

By that logic, I could say that the story of Jesus was an embellishment of earlier stories and the events described never actually happened. And that would also explain everything. But you would disagree with that, wouldn't you?

Except it doesn't, because it requires denying other historical figures like Peter and Paul, or creating an elaborate speculative theory about how Paul created a Jesus myth and despite knowing it was mythological was willing to endure imprisonment and death to maintain it. So the explanation is not the same as explaining Islam on the basis of the actions and psychology of one man.

The fact that you find it to be satisfactory does not obligate anyone else to find it satisfactory, particularly when you have been treating this topic with a double standard.

It certainly doesn't, but if we follow ordinary heuristics like Occam's razor and don't assume our conclusion at the jump it requires a rebuttal. That your rebuttal is nothing more than strawmen and ad hominem is telling.

 

[Kylie]

Do you find anything unreasonable about explaining that a belief that originates with a single individual and depends entirely upon that individual is likely explainable entirely in terms of their psychology? What more explanation is needed? What missing facts or details?

No, I don't find it unreasonable. We've seen it in modern times. David Koresh, for example. I think it's entirely possible that this could have happened with Islam.

But then again, you'll need to show that this did NOT happen with Christianity.

Nope, it's perfectly on topic because the issue is a matter of what we find to be authoritative sources. Only listening to those who agree with us is going to give us the impression of a consensus that doesn't exist.

So, let me get this straight...

This is a thread started to discuss the concept of "embedded age," we have taken that off topic to a discussion about the origin and spread of both Christianity and Islam, and now you want to start discussing the non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus?

And you claim that this is "perfectly on topic"?

No need, they've already been discussed in this thread. Early creedal statements that defy legendary development not only because of how rapidly they developed but more importantly that the supposed "legendary" material appears to be the historic core that legends would have been built around. The empty tomb, which is only dismissed by secular scholars because if the tomb were truly found empty it would be very inconvenient to their beliefs. Yet their dismissal of such evidence is purely on the presupposition and not on any sort of textual or historic evidence.

Maybe, I don't know. But I certainly don't have the time to go searching through almost 3000 posts to find it.

I do, you don't. I look at the history of both, and in one case there is a readily available explanation that requires no speculation and in the other there isn't.

You have not looked equally at both. You have almost completely ignored the origin of Islamic beliefs.

When did I say that? Yet another strawman.

When did you say that Christianity spread though love and peace?

Post 2419 where you spoke of "how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all."

Or were you NOT suggesting that this was through the witnessing of miracles? Were you NOT suggesting that Christianity started off with love and peace? You certainly seemed to be suggesting that the spread of Christianity was a generally peaceful business in post 2515 when you said that the incidences of Christian violence were "exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millennia."

And you've repeatedly stated that Islam spread through violence. For example, in posts 2419 where you said that Muhammad was, "a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword."

And post 2464 where you said, "Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword."

And also in post 2515 where you said, "Islam initially spread through the threat of violence."

I look at the historical documents of both, and recognize that without some authentic historical core to the resurrection there is no good explanation for the historical details. On the other hand, there is a readily available explanation for Islam in the psychology of a single man.

If you have found historical documents that indicate that Jesus actually resurrected, then you might want to show the Biblical scholars, because they don't seem to know about it.

Except it doesn't, because it requires denying other historical figures like Peter and Paul,

Would you care to go into more detail about why that would be required?

or creating an elaborate speculative theory about how Paul created a Jesus myth and despite knowing it was mythological was willing to endure imprisonment and death to maintain it. So the explanation is not the same as explaining Islam on the basis of the actions and psychology of one man.

Who says he must have known it was mythological?

It certainly doesn't, but if we follow ordinary heuristics like Occam's razor and don't assume our conclusion at the jump it requires a rebuttal. That your rebuttal is nothing more than strawmen and ad hominem is telling.

You have not shown that I have used a strawman. And where did I use an ad hominem?

 

[Fervent]

No, I don't find it unreasonable. We've seen it in modern times. David Koresh, for example. I think it's entirely possible that this could have happened with Islam.

But then again, you'll need to show that this did NOT happen with Christianity.

Nope, because Christianity isn't the testimony of one man developing a cult of personality during his lifetime. Unless you accept that Christ communicated after His death, the rise of the belief can't be explained by a single person's psychology and mass hallucination isn't likely given the duration reported and a lack of prompting beliefs.

So, let me get this straight...

This is a thread started to discuss the concept of "embedded age," we have taken that off topic to a discussion about the origin and spread of both Christianity and Islam, and now you want to start discussing the non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Nope, I'm not interested in limiting evidence for Jesus to "non-Biblical" sources. There is no reason to disregard the Bible as a historical document and exclusively rely on non-Biblical sources to recover the history.

And you claim that this is "perfectly on topic"?

I meant to the course of our discussion, I'd forgotten what the thread topic was supposed to be. Our whole discussion is far afield from embedded age. Though there really isn't much conversation possible for those who believe in embedded age, because it's entirely "faith"-based so no argument or evidence can change it. Just like no amount of evidence will dissuade someone who believes the universe is physical that it isn't.

Maybe, I don't know. But I certainly don't have the time to go searching through almost 3000 posts to find it.

Again, not really a need. The evidence is the creedal statements present in the Pauline literature that is nearly universally agreed to have originated by 41 AD at the latest. The combination of the centrality of that belief to the community of Jesus-followers and the stigma associated with death by crucifixion in 1st century culture raises the kinds of difficulties I argue exist for naturalistic explanations.

You have not looked equally at both. You have almost completely ignored the origin of Islamic beliefs.

No,, I've researched the origin of Islamic belief. I've read the Qu'ran, I've read Sira literature, I've read the Sunnah. I've read critical historians All of them make for a very easy explanation for its origin that depends on nothing but Muhammad's powers of persuasion, military proficiency, and willingness to accept converts forced to choose between beheading and becoming muslim.

When did you say that Christianity spread though love and peace?

Post 2419 where you spoke of "how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all."

Or were you NOT suggesting that this was through the witnessing of miracles? Were you NOT suggesting that Christianity started off with love and peace? You certainly seemed to be suggesting that the spread of Christianity was a generally peaceful business in post 2515 when you said that the incidences of Christian violence were "exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millennia."

And you've repeatedly stated that Islam spread through violence. For example, in posts 2419 where you said that Muhammad was, "a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword."

And post 2464 where you said, "Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword."

And also in post 2515 where you said, "Islam initially spread through the threat of violence."

If you have found historical documents that indicate that Jesus actually resurrected, then you might want to show the Biblical scholars, because they don't seem to know about it.

You seem to completely misunderstand my argument, as it isn't based on Jesus performing prior miracles. It is built on 2 things that are both readily defensible in consensus history. First, that Jesus was crucified and second that in short order a community of believers developed centered on the belief that Jesus was resurrected bodily and ascended to heaven. How a person such as Jesus with a humongous social stigma attached to His name came to be the center of a religious cult dedicated to the idea that He was resurrected to the degree that the earliest Christians were requires some sort of explanation, and naturalist explanations don't really cut the mustard when we apply ordinary epistemic rules to the question.

Would you care to go into more detail about why that would be required?

Because both Paul and Peter testified that Jesus existed and was resurrected, and claimed it from personal experience. Once we entertain mythicism we end up needing to cast more and more into myth. And that isn't even addressing that requiring the level of skepticism required to entertain mythicism would destroy our confidence that national heros, emperors, and major figures like Hannibal were real if applied to all historical figures.

Who says he must have known it was mythological?

Well, he stated that he personally encountered Jesus resurrected and spoke with the disciples who confirmed it. So how would he have been in the dark about it actually being myth? Remember, myth is not the same thing as legend since legend has a real historic core while myth is generally meant to teach a lesson through generally recognized fictions. So how would he have not known it was myth?

You have not shown that I have used a strawman. And where did I use an ad hominem?

You completely fail to understand my argument, which I have pointed out multiple times. You may not recognize it is a strawman, but since I know my argument, I'm able to recognize that your responses are to an entirely different line of argumentation. And you've used an ad hominem in several places, mostly by way of implying that I am biased because I am a Christian and am not holding a certain amount of academic distance to the extent possible for these kinds of questions.

 

[Kylie]

Nope, because Christianity isn't the testimony of one man developing a cult of personality during his lifetime. Unless you accept that Christ communicated after His death, the rise of the belief can't be explained by a single person's psychology and mass hallucination isn't likely given the duration reported and a lack of prompting beliefs.

I'm sure that all religions can point to some amazing event which they claim proves that their faith is true and other faiths are false. You're gonna need more than that.

Nope, I'm not interested in limiting evidence for Jesus to "non-Biblical" sources. There is no reason to disregard the Bible as a historical document and exclusively rely on non-Biblical sources to recover the history.

Except there are parts of the Bible which contradict known facts about our world, and other parts which contradict other parts, and parts which are clearly metaphorical, and other parts which may or may not be metaphorical with no way to tell for sure...

I meant to the course of our discussion, I'd forgotten what the thread topic was supposed to be.

Yeah, it's not like it's in the URL for any page in this thread, or even at the top of the page...

Our whole discussion is far afield from embedded age. Though there really isn't much conversation possible for those who believe in embedded age, because it's entirely "faith"-based so no argument or evidence can change it. Just like no amount of evidence will dissuade someone who believes the universe is physical that it isn't.

In this we agree.

Again, not really a need. The evidence is the creedal statements present in the Pauline literature that is nearly universally agreed to have originated by 41 AD at the latest. The combination of the centrality of that belief to the community of Jesus-followers and the stigma associated with death by crucifixion in 1st century culture raises the kinds of difficulties I argue exist for naturalistic explanations.

How do we know it originated then? I asked before and I don't recall you giving me an answer. You merely posted links which made the same claim, but they didn't explain how that date was worked out.

No,, I've researched the origin of Islamic belief. I've read the Qu'ran, I've read Sira literature, I've read the Sunnah. I've read critical historians All of them make for a very easy explanation for its origin that depends on nothing but Muhammad's powers of persuasion, military proficiency, and willingness to accept converts forced to choose between beheading and becoming muslim.

And you are doing it again.

I am not interested in listening to you repeatedly claim that Muhammad spread Islam through violence.

I want you to tell me what it was that made Muhammad a Muslim in the first place.

I think I have been abundantly clear about this for some time now, and I do not understand why you do not simply answer the question.

You seem to completely misunderstand my argument, as it isn't based on Jesus performing prior miracles. It is built on 2 things that are both readily defensible in consensus history. First, that Jesus was crucified and second that in short order a community of believers developed centered on the belief that Jesus was resurrected bodily and ascended to heaven. How a person such as Jesus with a humongous social stigma attached to His name came to be the center of a religious cult dedicated to the idea that He was resurrected to the degree that the earliest Christians were requires some sort of explanation, and naturalist explanations don't really cut the mustard when we apply ordinary epistemic rules to the question.

We've seen many religious cults in modern times that rise very quickly.

Because both Paul and Peter testified that Jesus existed and was resurrected, and claimed it from personal experience.

Paul's epistle was written around 53-54, about twenty years after the fact. Is there nothing earlier?

Once we entertain mythicism we end up needing to cast more and more into myth. And that isn't even addressing that requiring the level of skepticism required to entertain mythicism would destroy our confidence that national heros, emperors, and major figures like Hannibal were real if applied to all historical figures.

Then again, Hannibal hasn't been presented as the Son of God, or as the basis for a major religion.

Well, he stated that he personally encountered Jesus resurrected and spoke with the disciples who confirmed it. So how would he have been in the dark about it actually being myth? Remember, myth is not the same thing as legend since legend has a real historic core while myth is generally meant to teach a lesson through generally recognized fictions. So how would he have not known it was myth?

Well, Paul never met an Earthly Jesus, he claims to have had a vision of Jesus after Jesus' alleged resurrection.

You completely fail to understand my argument, which I have pointed out multiple times. You may not recognize it is a strawman, but since I know my argument, I'm able to recognize that your responses are to an entirely different line of argumentation.

Then perhaps you have failed to effectively communicate your point.

And you've used an ad hominem in several places, mostly by way of implying that I am biased because I am a Christian and am not holding a certain amount of academic distance to the extent possible for these kinds of questions.

No, you have inferred it, and that's on you, and not me.

And pointing out that you are biased because you are a Christian isn't an ad hominem. Can you show me any Christian who is NOT biased towards accepting the existence of God and Jesus? I don't think so. An ad hominem would be if I said something like, "Your claims about Jesus are clearly wrong, because you have smelly feet." I have done no such thing.

 

[Fervent]

I'm sure that all religions can point to some amazing event which they claim proves that their faith is true and other faiths are false. You're gonna need more than that.

Uh huh, right. Where's your evidence of that?

Except there are parts of the Bible which contradict known facts about our world, and other parts which contradict other parts, and parts which are clearly metaphorical, and other parts which may or may not be metaphorical with no way to tell for sure...

The truth of the Bible as a scientific textbook is a different question from whether or not Christ is God.

Yeah, it's not like it's in the URL for any page in this thread, or even at the top of the page...

I read the posts, not the headers.

In this we agree.

How do we know it originated then? I asked before and I don't recall you giving me an answer. You merely posted links which made the same claim, but they didn't explain how that date was worked out.

It comes from the dating of Paul's conversion among other internal elements of the books. But the point is, there's a general consensus for those dates. Do you accept scholastic consensus, or not?

And you are doing it again.

I am not interested in listening to you repeatedly claim that Muhammad spread Islam through violence.

I want you to tell me what it was that made Muhammad a Muslim in the first place.

I think I have been abundantly clear about this for some time now, and I do not understand why you do not simply answer the question.

You may not be interested, but I am repeating it because I am once again highlighting that explaining Islam's origins requires no elaborate speculative theories.

We've seen many religious cults in modern times that rise very quickly.

Still missing the point and addressing strawmen.

Paul's epistle was written around 53-54, about twenty years after the fact. Is there nothing earlier?

The dating of the epistles themselves isn't really all that relevant, though a 20 year gap is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to the gap between historical events and their documentation. Most of the time historians are working with sources much, much further removed.

Then again, Hannibal hasn't been presented as the Son of God, or as the basis for a major religion.

And this matters because...? Why should we be more skeptical about historical events because we don't like what is claimed about them?

Well, Paul never met an Earthly Jesus, he claims to have had a vision of Jesus after Jesus' alleged resurrection.

No, but he met Peter and James and the disciples and confirmed what he was taught about Jesus. Both of whom died claiming the same thing...so perhaps they lied to Paul, but then the problem only shifts to them.

Then perhaps you have failed to effectively communicate your point.

I''ve repeatedly pointed out that your counterarguments aren't addressing my point and stated it plainly. The point is about required explanations, not about how the two have spread over history or how quickly Christianity spread. there is no naturalistic explanation for the evidence surrounding the resurrection. Either key evidence must be dismissed because it is inconvenient and for no other reason, or a great deal of speculation must be

No, you have inferred it, and that's on you, and not me.

And pointing out that you are biased because you are a Christian isn't an ad hominem. Can you show me any Christian who is NOT biased towards accepting the existence of God and Jesus? I don't think so. An ad hominem would be if I said something like, "Your claims about Jesus are clearly wrong, because you have smelly feet." I have done no such thing.\

Accusing me of bias for being a Christian is most certainly an ad hominem, it's an appeal to motives. I could just as easily say that you are biased because you are an atheist, but that wouldn't really be relevant to the argument at hand. The only thing that matters is the argument itself, though bias may come into play such as in your usage of the "extraordinary claims" maxim where you codify your biases and present them as the argument.

 

[Diamond72]

The earth came into existence as old as God willed it to be.

God is in the moment and that includes past, present and future. I have had dreams about the future that turn out to be very exact and precise.