Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[QvQ]

Your original assertion was that the Epistle itself was written in the thirties. That is what Kylie is asking evidence for.

I did not assert the Epistle was written in the 30's.
1 Corinthian contains, what has been determined as a quote, 15 -3-8.
That formal Creed,either verbal or written, was received by Paul and he inserted it.
That Creed was created in that form in the 30's (written or oral)

Scholars agree 1 Corinthian 15 3-8 existed 30 -33 AD. Paul copied and pasted it.

What I was trying to point out to Kylie is that the physical manuscript scraps don't prove anything
The physical manuscripts scraps are more a testimony to the the worth people place on the words contained.
Plato is a testimony to Socrates, not the scrap but the words.
! Corinthian 15 3-8 is a testimony to Christ.

 

[Fervent]

And, of course, if they agree on some point, then you can claim that it's an essential. And if they don't agree, you can claim that it's non-essential. How very convenient.

Is there any position on which there is a universal agreement on every point among the people who subscribe to it?

I suspect you'll have similar luck with other believers who don't share your interpretation.

Depends, but with other believers there's a strata which we can discuss things from.

The same point applies to skeptics, I think.

Skeptics aren't intent on being skeptical? Then what makes them skeptics?

Who said anything about natural?

It goes hand in hand with skeptical disbelief. It's an unspoken assumption

I'm talking about what is REAL.

How do you know what is real?

If something supernatural is real, then I'm happy to accept it, even if it isn't natural. Just as long as it is testable.

What does supernatural mean? How do you define supernatural without contrasting it with natural? The issue boils down to how "natural" is defined, and its definiton is so malleable that it lacks any real meaning.

If different ideas can't be tested, then do they really make much of a difference?

Worldview beliefs can't be tested, and tend to be the dividing line between believers and disbelievers. So yeah, they make a difference.

I mean, if there's no test that can show the difference between Platonic realism, conceptualism, and nominalism, then the difference does really exist in any practical sense.

How about physicalism and Platonic realism? Seems a pretty important difference there. Especially when we speak of the current conversation.

 

[Fervent]

Doesn't sound very skeptical to me.

Perhaps not, but it's how the word is typically used in these sort of discussions.

No, that's not solipsism. That's my current condition, which, as far as I know, could change. I don't do philosophy. I can work with the evidence I have available (not just from science) and get closer to truths over time.

How do you determine that you are getting closer to "truths" if the only thing you believe is that you exist? Seems to me you're playing a game here, and denying that you believe things.

Again, not a solipsist. And I'm not looking forward to my taxes this year, they're going to be more complicated than usual this time.

Did you not say the only thing you believed was that you exist? If you don't believe anything beyond that, how are you not a solipsist?

Let's take AV's embedded age thing for example. I see a lot of evidence that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Now, that evidence could be false, or I could be misinterpreting it. I don't have faith that any of it is true. But I'll work with what I've got and consider for now that it's very likely that our world and universe are billions of years old. AV comes around and says that it was all created relatively recently and made to look like a mature planet and universe. I have no problem with that idea, but I'm not going to consider it likely without some support. I'm not going to reject it. I'll keep it under consideration. On the other hand, if it was made to look billions of years old, then I might as well consider it to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes.

You see a lot of evidence? How so, if the only thing you believe is that you exist? Where does this evidence come from, without subscribing to some other beliefs?

 

[BCP1928]

I did not assert the Epistle was written in the 30's.
1 Corinthian contains, what has been determined as a quote, 15 -3-8.
That formal Creed,either verbal or written, was received by Paul and he inserted it.
That Creed was created in that form in the 30's (written or oral)

Scholars agree 1 Corinthian 15 3-8 existed 30 -33 AD. Paul copied and pasted it.

What I was trying to point out to Kylie is that the physical manuscript scraps don't prove anything
The physical manuscripts scraps are more a testimony to the the worth people place on the words contained.
Plato is a testimony to Socrates, not the scrap but the words.
! Corinthian 15 3-8 is a testimony to Christ.

I thought that was more or less what we were trying to convince you of.

 

[Yttrium]

How do you determine that you are getting closer to "truths" if the only thing you believe is that you exist? Seems to me you're playing a game here, and denying that you believe things.

You seem to have the idea that we either believe something to be true or we're completely clueless. That's hardly the case. I can assess the data (faulty though it may be) and come up with a likelihood. That likelihood may turn out to be completely off base, but that's okay, I'll risk it. I can assess my surroundings and consider it likely that my next step will be on solid ground. I don't have faith in that. I don't need faith. I might step into a concealed pit or a warp into another dimension, but I'll risk it. My experience says I'll probably be okay, and if I'm not, oh well, I'll try to work with the consequences.

I don't operate in your binary all-or-nothing philosophy. If I have evidence available, I'll work with what I've got and see where it gets me.

Did you not say the only thing you believed was that you exist? If you don't believe anything beyond that, how are you not a solipsist?

Because a solipsist believes we can't know anything exists beyond the self. I have no such belief. Just because I don't have beliefs now doesn't mean that I can't attain them given sufficient evidence.

You see a lot of evidence? How so, if the only thing you believe is that you exist? Where does this evidence come from, without subscribing to some other beliefs?

From my faulty senses. It's hard not to notice, I'm getting flooded with sensory evidence all the time. Just because it may be unreliable doesn't mean I'm not receiving it. And again, I can work with what I've got.

 

[Fervent]

You seem to have the idea that we either believe something to be true or we're completely clueless. That's hardly the case. I can assess the data (faulty though it may be) and come up with a likelihood. That likelihood may turn out to be completely off base, but that's okay, I'll risk it. I can assess my surroundings and consider it likely that my next step will be on solid ground. I don't have faith in that. I don't need faith. I might step into a concealed pit or a warp into another dimension, but I'll risk it. My experience says I'll probably be okay, and if I'm not, oh well, I'll try to work with the consequences.

How do you access the data without believing certain things to be true? If the only thing you believe to be true is your own existence, what data is there to evaluate?

I don't operate in your binary all-or-nothing philosophy. If I have evidence available, I'll work with what I've got and see where it gets me.

You seem to play games with the word "belief" in claiming that you don't believe something but you find it likely. My question is how do you arrive at that likelihood without additional beliefs?

Because a solipsist believes we can't know anything exists beyond the self. I have no such belief. Just because I don't have beliefs now doesn't mean that I can't attain them given sufficient evidence.

You're playing some rather strange games with the word "belief" since you claim to only believe that you exist, but then you seem to be under the impression that you have evidence...which if your claim about your one belief is true remains unclear how you developed such evidence.

From my faulty senses. It's hard not to notice, I'm getting flooded with sensory evidence all the time. Just because it may be unreliable doesn't mean I'm not receiving it. And again, I can work with what I've got.

So you personally observed evidence that the world is billions of years old, without placing any trust in other human beings?

 

[Yttrium]

How do you access the data without believing certain things to be true? If the only thing you believe to be true is your own existence, what data is there to evaluate?

Like I said, it's pretty hard not to notice all the sensory data flooding in.

You seem to play games with the word "belief" in claiming that you don't believe something but you find it likely. My question is how do you arrive at that likelihood without additional beliefs?

Experience.

You're playing some rather strange games with the word "belief" since you claim to only believe that you exist, but then you seem to be under the impression that you have evidence...which if your claim about your one belief is true remains unclear how you developed such evidence.

I don't need to believe something is true to collect evidence. I collect sensory data all the time whether I want to or not. Is that thing there a car? Well, my pattern recognition and experience suggest that it's very likely the type of thing I've classified as a car. I could be wrong, but I'll treat it like a car until demonstrated otherwise.

So you personally observed evidence that the world is billions of years old, without placing any trust in other human beings?

I can get information from other human beings without trusting them. Not trusting them doesn't mean I reject what they say, it means that I recognize that they could be wrong. I can still use the information.

 

[Fervent]

Like I said, it's pretty hard not to notice all the sensory data flooding in.

This sentence is pregnant with beliefs beyond your claimed one.

Experience.

Oh?

I don't need to believe something is true to collect evidence. I collect sensory data all the time whether I want to or not. Is that thing there a car? Well, my pattern recognition and experience suggest that it's very likely the type of thing I've classified as a car. I could be wrong, but I'll treat it like a car until demonstrated otherwise.

Evidence depends on the theory it is relevant to, and believing something likely is a belief...so were you telling the truth when you claimed you only have one belief, or do you have other beliefs?

I can get information from other human beings without trusting them. Not trusting them doesn't mean I reject what they say, it means that I recognize that they could be wrong. I can still use the information.

How do you use the information without believing them to be generally telling the truth? Seems to me you're playing a lot of silly word games to avoid admitting the truth and instead play "open minded"

 

[sesquiterpene]

Well, QvQ just brought it up and it struck me that I haven't actually heard of it in a while. I don't know how long you have been fighting the good fight for literal inerrancy in these chatrooms and are familiar with the usual suspects, but the last I had heard of it before that was from a guy named Karl Crawford who used to be very active under a series of monickers "YEC" "trilobite" and "57" which is what he was using when he moved over here and was active for several years after Beliefnet shut down their forums. Not all YECs were into it--it used to be a clue that you could determine which creationist web ministry's stuff they were pushing.

Hey! I remember Karl Crawford from my Usenet days - probably thirty years ago by now. I'm not sure if I ever made a connection to any CF participants, although I was lurking here at least 20 years ago. Karl had an interesting, if completely fictional, take on the anatomy of woodpeckers. He was rather annoying due to his complete inability to understand counterarguments to his positions. Not much has changed, has it?

This prompted me to google his name. I came back with an obituary with the following description

"worked at Prudential Insurance Company in Newark, New Jersey for a few years and then at New Jersey Bell (Verizon) for 30 years as a Central Office Technician in the Toll Department"

I read that as Troll Department and thought "that is the Karl I knew!" But no, there is little chance that was him.

 

[roman2819]

First of all, most people don't like having someone else's religion pushed at them, which is probably why they tell you to go away and that they aren't interested.

You are wrong. Some of them were colleagues, we go to lunch and movies, and we get along.

Secondly , you call me a "wanna be atheist?" There's a rule on this site against telling someone that they do not hold the faith they claim to hold (even if it is atheism, which is not a religion at all). You are breaking the rules by saying I am just a wanna-be atheist. I'm happy to believe you were unaware of this rule, but if you do it again, I will report you.

So the truth bothers you. If I say you are the 'ultimate real atheist' would you report?

By the way, a quick Google search got me a lot of results about atheists asking for evidence of God. So it's a pretty common thing.

You have a narrow shallow view thinking that Google is comprehensive to cover most things, when it's only a fraction of what's out there. Many people don't go to internet or not interested to talk on internet about God that they believe don't exist.

 

[Kylie]

Is there any position on which there is a universal agreement on every point among the people who subscribe to it?

Yes. All people agree on the speed of light in a vacuum, and when that value has been adjusted (which it has, several times), it is based on testable and repeatable evidence.

There is, so far as I'm aware, not a single person who claims otherwise who has been able to produce any evidence to support their differing claim.

Depends, but with other believers there's a strata which we can discuss things from.

Facts are demonstrated by producing evidence, not arrived at by means of having discussions. You make it sound like a conference, a council, or something.

Skeptics aren't intent on being skeptical? Then what makes them skeptics?

The fact that they seek more than just a claim before they'll accept something as being true.

You seem to be describing contrarians, not skeptics.

It goes hand in hand with skeptical disbelief. It's an unspoken assumption

Given that you've already demonstrated that you don't actually know what a skeptic really is, I don't think you are justified in making those kinds of assumptions.

I mean, I'd describe myself as a skeptic, and I'd be happy to accept the existence of the supernatural providing that it can be shown in some testable way.

How do you know what is real?

If it is testable in a repeatable way. If other people who have tested it get the same results as me. If it acts in a predictable and consistent manner.

What does supernatural mean? How do you define supernatural without contrasting it with natural? The issue boils down to how "natural" is defined, and its definiton is so malleable that it lacks any real meaning.

Perhaps something that exists outside our universe but is able to interact with our universe. After all, that's basically what Christians say God is, don't they? And isn't God an example of something supernatural?

Worldview beliefs can't be tested, and tend to be the dividing line between believers and disbelievers. So yeah, they make a difference.

I fear you have misunderstood the point I was making...

If a person is a Platonic realist, but then decides that they find conceptualism to be the most plausible worldview, how does their actual life change?

How about physicalism and Platonic realism? Seems a pretty important difference there. Especially when we speak of the current conversation.

Please tell me how the life of a Platonic realist is different to a Physicalist.

 

[Kylie]

You are wrong. Some of them were colleagues, we go to lunch and movies, and we get along.

Colleagues in what? Just at work? I don't think anyone wants to be preached at when they go to the office. They are there to work, after all. If they want to talk about religion, they'll go to church.

And you are the one who told you they weren't interested in discussing it. Oh wait, did you think I was referring specifically to you when I said, "most people don't like having someone else's religion pushed at them, which is probably why they tell you to go away and that they aren't interested"?

Well, I did say "most people," so that covers most people on the planet, not just the ones you know.

Of course, I was right about those people anyway, they did tell you they weren't interested. At least, according to you.

There are many things including other atheists' way of thoughts that are not on Google. You have a narrow tunnel vision thinking that google say everything about a subject, hence you assume wrongly that I keep talking to atheist friends about God only.

Hold on...

When did I say that you spoke to them about God and nothing else? Please quote me where I said that. Because I'm fairly certain I never made that claim.

And the vast majority of atheists that I've seen are perfectly willing to change their mind if given sufficient evidence. I can't give you a link, because this is something I have seen on this site and many others, in many different threads over many years.

But I'd be more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and start a thread on here to let atheists speak for themselves. Alas, I'm not sure where the most appropriate forum on this site would be. If you want, I'll ask a staff member for assistance.

 

[Kylie]

So the truth bothers you. If I say you are the 'ultimate real atheist' would you report?

Hmmm, for some reason, I got two posts from you replying to the same post of mine. Since this comment is the only difference, I'll reply to it alone.

You claim the truth bothers me. Yet I was very clear that it was not the truth. I am not a "wanna be atheist. " I am an atheist, there's nothing "wanna be about it."

 

[Kylie]

Your original assertion was that the Epistle itself was written in the thirties. That is what Kylie is asking evidence for.

And yet to receive.

 

[Kylie]

I did not assert the Epistle was written in the 30's.
1 Corinthian contains, what has been determined as a quote, 15 -3-8.
That formal Creed,either verbal or written, was received by Paul and he inserted it.
That Creed was created in that form in the 30's (written or oral)

Scholars agree 1 Corinthian 15 3-8 existed 30 -33 AD. Paul copied and pasted it.

What I was trying to point out to Kylie is that the physical manuscript scraps don't prove anything
The physical manuscripts scraps are more a testimony to the the worth people place on the words contained.
Plato is a testimony to Socrates, not the scrap but the words.
! Corinthian 15 3-8 is a testimony to Christ.

You completely missed the point of what I was asking, and you have also completely ignored my request, despite responding to other users here.

What source do you have that the Corinthian Creed dates to 30-33 AD?

 

[QvQ]

What source do you have that the Corinthian Creed dates to 30-33 AD?

Kylie, I posted sources

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, I posted sources

You posted a guy making the claim and a link to a website that made the same claim.

I am very clearly asking for the EVIDENCE that supports the claim.

 

[AveChristusRex]

You posted a guy making the claim and a link to a website that made the same claim.

I am very clearly asking for the EVIDENCE that supports the claim.

Define what you mean by "evidence", as this could go on and on with you dismissing QvQ's evidence and sources as not fitting your definition of "evidence"

 

[roman2819]

Thirdly, for me to have an axe to grind with God, it would require that I believe in God. I do not. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan or any other character from the Bible.

That is like someone saying they don't like to eat steak but keep eating steak. Or someone who say they don't believe in horoscope but read horoscope every day. A real atheist wouldn't be answering questions high and low almost daily here.

 

[AveChristusRex]

That is like someone saying they don't like to eat steak but keep eating steak. Or someone who say they don't believe in horoscope but read horoscope every day. A real atheist wouldn't be answering questions high and low almost daily here.

A real atheist would disregard folks like us and go about their life on their own; to continue here is to ipso facto seek God