The Flood (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

So if my friend dies, then ten or twenty years later I write a history of him that does not qualify as evidence?

Not from the point of view of a civilisation 2000 years in the future.

I don't care about 'contemporary' as the way you seem to be using it does not equate to a rational argument and becomes arbitrary.

Of course it does: minutes taken at the Last Supper would constitute stronger evidence for the existance of the Last Supper than Da Vinci's painting does.

If I were to write about my friend during his life, or about his death after he is dead how does that I am an eyewitness to his life and said events somehow change?

It does not.

It does not. Similarly eyewitness accounts recorded of Jesus life certainly qualify as evidence.

But that's just it: we do not know that they were eye-witnesses.

It is absolutely irrational to automatically discard any evidence written in regard to someone simply because it is done after said person has died.

Non-contemporary documentation attesting to the historical existance of a party does not count as evidence for that person if there is no correlating contemporary documentation.

That said, if there is such correlating documentation (that is, if Mary (mother of Jesus) kept a 40 year diary from year 0CE to year 40CE, and it agreed completely with the rest of the NT, then the non-contemporary documentation would suddently become verified).

The point is that, without verification by contemporary documentation, non-contemporary documents become just that: unverified.

So no. That is not a given, in fact a lot of history is like that.

On the contrary, doubt arises as to the historical existance of a party when there is no contemporary documentation. Did King Arthur exist? Did Cleopatra exist? Guess what the difference is between their respective documentation.

Awesome. I have a history minor, and a science major specifically biology, so this kind of thing is right up my alley. I hope I didn't sound too condescending or anything, but this "Jesus Myth" stuff is really equatable with pseudoscience from a historical perspective. Most of the "Christ Myth" or "Christ Conspiracy" advocates have been wholly discredited, or have retracted their advocations.

Nevertheless, I remain one of those few. To be honest, I'm surprised so many people believe that Jesus actually exist, given the lack of evidence (but let's keep that to our above discussion).

 

[AV1611VET]

When I asked for evidence for the existance of Jesus, I made sure to ask for verifiable, contemporary, historical documentation.

Here's your post again --- please point out the sentence that ends in a question mark.

I have never heard of Fillmore before, but let us do some research.

Wikipedia has several photographs of the man:

Of his campaign poster:

These two alone convince me of his existance: there is a contemporary photograph of the man, and it agrees with his likeness on an equally contemporary document.

Now, I have only been researching the man for five minutes, and I have other things I need to be doing (besides posting here, that is), but I daresay there is historical evidence that proves his existance beyond reasonable doubt.

The photographs of Fillmore are verifiable, contemporary, historical documents.

That's fine --- but why did you tack them on to one of my posts? I'm looking for outside-of-the-United-States official documentation - not pictures.

The KJV of the Bible is neither verifiable, contemporary, nor historical.

Then neither is Millard Fillmore.

 

[Loudmouth]

AV,

You can find an archive of letters written by Fillmore and letters to Fillmore here:

http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/msscfa/vc22280.htm

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/guidedisplay.pl?index=f000115

You can read a letter that Fillmore sent to Japan's Emporer through Commodore Perry here:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob54.html

This resulted in a trade treaty between Japan and the US.

So we have trade agreements that Fillmore set up and letters written by his very hand. On top of that, we have actual pictures of Fillmore. Do we have anything like this for Jesus? Nope.

 

[FishFace]

How about you pouters who whine that Jesus didn't exist because there's no "extrabiblical" confirmation tell me how you "know" Millard Fillmore was the 13[sup]th[/sup] president of the United States; using the same criteria that you guys are begging for?

I don't. Was he?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do we have anything like this for Jesus? Nope.

I have in my possession a letter written by Jesus to seven churches in Asia, but --- I also have a thread on this very topic; so I'm going to bow out of it here.

Thanks for trying.

 

[FishFace]

Adam was given dominion over all the earth....

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

and when he sinned it was cursed.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Man is ultimately responsible for what happens upon the earth. God has given us dominion. Because of this there are times when even God's hands are tied. God gets entrance into the affairs of earth by men and women and so does satan. God gets entrance into our own personal affairs when we give Him entrance, and so does satan. We have the authority on the earth now through what Jesus Christ has done. Most people either don't know it or don't believe it but those who do take that authority to the level of their faith and get results. Jesus walked fully in this authority. He calmed the storms. He walked on water. He cursed the fig tree. He raised the dead. We can also, walk in this same authority and it is only limited to the degree our faith is developed.

I asked:

"Why did God create a world in which there were (or there were going to be if, for some unsupportable reason, you believe there were none at creation) earthquakes, plagues, droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions and so on?"

You responded:

Because Adam messed up.

I ask again:

Why did God create a world in which there were going to be earthquakes, plagues, droughts, etc.?

Which you can read as:

Why did God create a world in which Adam would sin, and in which Adam's sin would ruin the world?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I have in my possession a letter written by Jesus to seven churches in Asia, but --- I also have a thread on this very topic; so I'm going to bow out of it here.

Thanks for trying.

I cannot wait to see this letter. Link, please.

 

[FishFace]

So if my friend dies, then ten or twenty years later I write a history of him that does not qualify as evidence?

Not very good evidence, no.

Similarly eyewitness accounts recorded of Jesus life certainly qualify as evidence.

But the first written account is from a guy who had a VISION of Jesus! You know what we call visions these days? Hallucinations, generally.
Now, there's by no means a clear deficit of evidence. But you have to admit that when your first source is from a guy who said he saw Jesus when he was probably having an epileptic fit, you're not onto a very good case.

That is not a given, in fact a lot of history is like that.

Well, a lot of history isn't very certain. But most of the time, you at least have records a bit more reliable than someone's vision.
And of course, we're not usually dealing with someone who people very much wanted to exist.

 

[FishFace]

WC glossed over the fact that I said "same criteria" --- and even underlined it; which tells me he doesn't want to debat it.

You think that verifiable, contemporary and historical is equivalent to "outside the country?"

I knew you had some weird views on language but that just is beyond me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's your post again --- please point out the sentence that ends in a question mark.

I didn't ask for evidence in that post. I was simply responding to your query. My point was that when I asked for evidence, I asked it to be contemporary.

That's fine --- but why did you tack them on to one of my posts? I'm looking for outside-of-the-United-States official documentation - not pictures.

The two are not mutually exclusive y'know.

If this is supposed to be an analogy to my request for evidence of Jesus, then it is flawed: I don't care where the evidence comes from, only when.

But nevertheless, Anon delivers:
A letter sent by Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan...
... and the reply.

That is, we have contemporary evidence for the existance of President Fillmore by way of correspondances between him and the Emperor of Japan. Given this external evidence, the internal evidence therefore becomes validated and Fillmore's existance becomes verified.

 

[JesusFreak4L]

Yours is just a funfest of lies and bad science.

I suggest you pick one point that you think amply demonstrates that the flood really happened, start a thread on it, describe it in your own words and then link to supporting evidence.

Once I have finished laughing I will refute it.

I have been a geologist in academia and industry for 24 years, i doubt there any points that you could bring up that I haven't heard before and couldn't refute in a paragraph or two.

In fact here you go.

Explain how the White cliffs of Dover formed using the flood model.

All you can do is say that my science proofs are laughable!?...thats it!?....if you can say that my science is laughable, then i can say that your science is laughable!...science and Creationism go together better than science and anything you believe in my friend!...Fellow atheists and "non-believers" even say that there is evidence of some sort of Supreme Being outside of this earth!...They say that there was a beginning to this earth based on how the Universe is expanding, so therefore your science is messed up, and just cause your a "scientist" doesnt mean i have to believe what you have to say over what the scientists i believe say!...

Have fun using your messed up proofs for proving anything about what you believe!...

ever heard of the word incomprehensible? It's what God is, its why there is so much dispute about him!...It's because noone can truely understand him, because he is SO GREAT!

-Cameron

 

[Pete Harcoff]

science and Creationism go together better than science and anything you believe in my friend!

Then why is it that, for example, there is not a single geologist who accepts the creationist view of geology for reasons independent of religious belief?

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Not from the point of view of a civilisation 2000 years in the future.

Yes from a point 2000 years in the future, assuming those in the future are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the past.

Of course it does: minutes taken at the Last Supper would constitute stronger evidence for the existance of the Last Supper than Da Vinci's painting does.

So? It wouldn't be any more authentic or able to use as evidential support than one drawn 10 years after Jesus death by an attendant.

Non-contemporary documentation attesting to the historical existance of a party does not count as evidence for that person if there is no correlating contemporary documentation.

Well if that's true Socrates didn't exist either as well as a large number of other figures in history whose existence is never contested. And who says what does or does not 'count'? On what authority do you base this idiotic rule? And is their interpretation of 'Contemporary' the exact same as yours?

No Historians I have ever heard of adhere to what you speak of. It is absolutely retarded. (no offense) How could anyone possibly write about someone's death and resurrection if they hadn't died? Heck how can you write about anyone's death period if they haven't died?
Your qualifications are absolutely absurd.

That said, if there is such correlating documentation (that is, if Mary (mother of Jesus) kept a 40 year diary from year 0CE to year 40CE, and it agreed completely with the rest of the NT, then the non-contemporary documentation would suddently become verified).

You might as well just ask for a photograph. Do you realize how few people could actually keep a diary of those how few who did?

But again, by whose authority are you deciding what is 'verified' and 'unverified'. I fear you are deriving your conclusions on this from less than credible sources, as the arguments appear very vacouous, and very deconstructionist.

The point is that, without verification by contemporary documentation, non-contemporary documents become just that: unverified.

Tell me where you got this idea before we go any further... is sounds very deconstructionist and sounds hollow. People do not magically lose all ability to write after a friend dies.

On the contrary, doubt arises as to the historical existance of a party when there is no contemporary documentation. Did King Arthur exist? Did Cleopatra exist? Guess what the difference is between their respective documentation.

Yes and yes both existed. Your example imo is pretty bad, of course you are trying to misrepresent the situation. People who wrote about Jesus saw Jesus and/or corresponded with people who had, so the example fails at numerous levels.

Nevertheless, I remain one of those few. To be honest, I'm surprised so many people believe that Jesus actually exist, given the lack of evidence (but let's keep that to our above discussion).

Perhaps real historians are intelligent people and make good arguments?

 

[Skaloop]

How could anyone possibly write about someone's death and resurrection if they hadn't died? Heck how can you write about anyone's death period if they haven't died?

You're kidding, right? It's called imagination. Anyone with the ability to write can write about someone's death without anyone needing to actually die. They can write about the death of a real person or a fictional person, again without any death (or even existence of the written-about deceased) necessary. It's dead easy.

President George W. Bush died on October 15th, 2006. After two days spent in a hyperbolic chamber, his blood was replaced with microscopic nanobots which repaired his organs and his life was restored.

See how easy that was? And it's even easier with a fictional character, because there's no need to account for any real-world situations that go against what I wrote.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

You're kidding, right? It's called imagination. Anyone with the ability to write can write about someone's death without anyone needing to actually die. They can write about the death of a real person or a fictional person, again without any death (or even existence of the written-about deceased) necessary. It's dead easy.

President George W. Bush died on October 15th, 2006. After two days spent in a hyperbolic chamber, his blood was replaced with microscopic nanobots which repaired his organs and his life was restored.

See how easy that was? And it's even easier with a fictional character, because there's no need to account for any real-world situations that go against what I wrote.

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "for the sake of argument"??!??!?!?

 

[Skaloop]

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "for the sake of argument"??!??!?!?

Sure. Maybe it means something different to you, though, since I don't quite see how it applies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes from a point 2000 years in the future, assuming those in the future are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the past.

Bingo.

So? It wouldn't be any more authentic or able to use as evidential support than one drawn 10 years after Jesus death by an attendant.

My point was that the Christian writings only appear several decades after Jesus alleged death. Wasn't anyone writing beforehand? Pre-humous biographies are possbile, y'know.

Well if that's true Socrates didn't exist either as well as a large number of other figures in history whose existence is never contested.

Given that we have the works of Socrates, I'd hardly say he didn't exist. In any case, I am merely stating that I don't believe because of the absence of evidence. There is evidence for Socrates, so I do believe.

And who says what does or does not 'count'? On what authority do you base this idiotic rule? And is their interpretation of 'Contemporary' the exact same as yours?

No Historians I have ever heard of adhere to what you speak of. It is absolutely retarded. (no offense) How could anyone possibly write about someone's death and resurrection if they hadn't died? Heck how can you write about anyone's death period if they haven't died?

Your qualifications are absolutely absurd.

My qualifications are in mathematics and physics. I deal in logic and proof, rigour and elegance. That said, I have yet to see any objection from you that isn't an ad hominem: "It is absolutely retarded", "Your qualifications are absurd", "On what authority do you base this idiotic rule?", etc.
Note that these three are from this post alone. If you have actual objections, then make them clear, and don't obfuscate them in insults.

You might as well just ask for a photograph. Do you realize how few people could actually keep a diary of those how few who did?

It's not my fault if the record-keeping of the time was lacking. But that's besides the point: the record-keeping of the time wasn't lacking.

But again, by whose authority are you deciding what is 'verified' and 'unverified'. I fear you are deriving your conclusions on this from less than credible sources, as the arguments appear very vacouous, and very deconstructionist.

These arguments are my own. Why on Earth would I believe Jesus existed 2000 years ago if there is no evidence for his existance? Of all the documents of the time, there is no mention of his existance. But, a few decades after his alleged death, an epileptic has a vision of Jesus and writes a book. This should raise suspicions, if nothing else.

People do not magically lose all ability to write after a friend dies.

Nor do they lose the ability while said friend is alive. Tell me, why didn't anyone write about Jesus when he was living? You'd think that the literate disciples would be eating up his every word: he was the Messiah.

Yes and yes both existed. Your example imo is pretty bad, of course you are trying to misrepresent the situation.

I'm simply showing that we are fairly sure Cleopatra existed because we have contemporary documentation, yet we are unsure of King Arthur's existance because we don't have such documentation.

People who wrote about Jesus saw Jesus and/or corresponded with people who had, so the example fails at numerous levels.

So they claim. I find it suspicious that none wrote prior to his death. People don't magically gain the ability to write about someone when they die.

Perhaps real historians are intelligent people and make good arguments?

Perhaps. You did history; where're your arguments? Where's your refutation of my methodology?

 

[FishFace]

All you can do is say that my science proofs are laughable!?...thats it!?....if you can say that my science is laughable, then i can say that your science is laughable!

You could. But you'd be wrong - where is your scientific "proof?" I highly doubt you have such a thing - you can't prove anything in science since just because there are masses of evidence does not prevent the possibility of something being false.
But if you have evidence, then pick the best of it, post it, and we'll discuss it. Then if we get through that, pick the next best.

...science and Creationism go together better than science and anything you believe in my friend!

Creationism starts with the conclusion (God created the world, the flood happened) And tries to vindicate it. Science starts with the evidence, then comes to a conclusion.

...Fellow atheists and "non-believers" even say that there is evidence of some sort of Supreme Being outside of this earth!

Do they now! Well I never. They can speak for themselves.

...They say that there was a beginning to this earth based on how the Universe is expanding, so therefore your science is messed up

Uh..? The earth began, sure - in a planetary accretion disk some 4.6+ billion years ago. How does this mess up science?

, and just cause your a "scientist" doesnt mean i have to believe what you have to say over what the scientists i believe say!...

Look. You're not a scientist - nor am I. So there are two sensible things to do. The first is the easy option - we go with the majority. It might not be right, but it's gonna be pretty good most of the time. The second is to understand the evidence and the arguments and to make up your own mind.
What you can't do is just say you believe creation "scientists." Apart from the fact that they don't exist (you won't find a single published, peer-reviewed scientific paper on creation "science") they're waaaay in the minority even if you shift your definition of scientist around. There are 700 scientists who've associated themselves with creationism. Their statement is far from clearly creationist, and they're not all from the life sciences - where it counts. That's a tiny number.
So if you want to believe creationism, you have to take on the arguments. Let's have 'em. One at a time for the sake of logistics. Start a new thread with your best one and I promise I at least will post you a serious, informative reply.

Have fun using your messed up proofs for proving anything about what you believe!...

What proof?

ever heard of the word incomprehensible? It's what God is, its why there is so much dispute about him!...It's because noone can truely understand him, because he is SO GREAT!

Nice get-out clause. You can understand God is love, right? But you can't understand anything problematic about him - you just shut your ears.

 

[FishFace]

Given that we have the works of Socrates, I'd hardly say he didn't exist. In any case, I am merely stating that I don't believe because of the absence of evidence. There is evidence for Socrates, so I do believe.

We're not really sure that Socrates really existed. We only know of him through other philosophers who wrote about him in a way that implies... imagination. It's entirely plausible that he didn't exist.

 

[Contracelsus]

Fellow atheists and "non-believers" even say that there is evidence of some sort of Supreme Being outside of this earth!

Did you proofread that part of the post? Maybe you aren't talking to atheists but actually talking to religious people and you mistakenly thought they were athiests?

Isn't it kind of inherent in atheism for someone to lack a belief in just this sort of thing?

Have fun using your messed up proofs for proving anything about what you believe!...

Well, actually when going up against a professional geologist like Baggins, you could do a lot better than a list of AiG links.

Trust me, it isn't going to get you too far.

AiG is hardly a "respected source of science" among scientists.

Just so ya know...

ever heard of the word incomprehensible? It's what God is

Presumably he is incomprehensible to you as well, right? So how do you know you aren't wrong on the Flood?

, its why there is so much dispute about him!...It's because noone can truely understand him, because he is SO GREAT!

But you see, that isn't enough for many people. Many people like to know what they are loving and worshipping. Many people think that since God can do anything that he can surely provide them an appreciation for what he is.

Many people kind of cringe when they are faced with the command to worship and love something that they can never know.

But that's just some people. Obviously not all.