Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.

Standing by itself, the validity of this statement is difficult to measure.

Our science as it stands, cannot go earlier than the Big Bang. So it could be possible that some thinking entity initiated the BB. However, speculating in that direction usually ends up being a god-of-the-gaps argument. Everything depends on exactly what you are speculating.

My disagreements start when people start preaching a creator god that interacts with mankind.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here comes the correction to your reasoning.

The first mistake you made was this:

"Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel,"

"Ten years later the act is repeated."

Your analogy fails because it incorporates nothing more of a re-writing of an original story as decades and centuries passed.

It does not compare to The Gospels, Paul's Letters, the rest of the NT, and other documents written as a close contemporary to Jesus by multiple persons, and in which many of these documents do not share much in common other than the existence of this same Jesus.

We all know how vastly different Paul's experience with Jesus is from the Gospel records, and from other records. Yet, ALL these different records point at one commonality; Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Explain that.

Mark's analogy is quite applicable to the Gospels. The three synoptic Gospels share many passages that are word-for-word identical -- not just speaking of the same events, but doing so in the exact same words. This means that they either copied from each other, or they all copied from a common source, or both. And that fits Mark's analogy.

To the Gospels ALONE, perhaps. But the problem with his analogy is that it excludes all other texts that are not gospels.

And that is exactly why it fails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Okay, so tell me what is unreasonable for a First Cause to be a being of some sort?

Since I rely on science and apistevism, I would say anything that violates the natural laws of the universe would be unreasonable.

My position is this:

Science takes us to the precise instant of the Big Bang. Prior to that instant we can say nothing with any certainty. So I am comfortable saying "I don't know. Maybe someday we will."

I would have to ask you to define the being you are postulating and I will tell you what, if anything, I think is unreasonable.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.

Standing by itself, the validity of this statement is difficult to measure.

Our science as it stands, cannot go earlier than the Big Bang. So it could be possible that some thinking entity initiated the BB. However, speculating in that direction usually ends up being a god-of-the-gaps argument. Everything depends on exactly what you are speculating.

My disagreements start when people start preaching a creator god that interacts with mankind.

But the same is true if we speculate on anything else as being the reason for existence in regards to First Cause. Every last speculation on every possibility is, in fact, a god-of-the-gaps position.

Therefore, all are equally valid until proven otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And until we can conclusively rule out that possibility, then that possibility remains as valid as any other because none of the others have been confirmed or ruled out either.

Not really, you can simply apply Occam's Razor to rule out things.

Is a first cause necessary? Nope

Is a first cause a simple natural phenomenon? Could be, we don't know.

Is a first cause a god? Could be, yet we are already anthropomorphizing the question. Why are we assuming any intelligence in a first cause?
We have already made unwarranted assumptions.

Think of all of the other assumptions loaded into the goddidit explanation:

YHWH is the first cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son is that 1st cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son and revealed the Truth to your favorite flavor of Christianity is that 1st cause.

And so on and so forth.

There are a bunch of presuppositions loaded into the goddidit explanation.

Every one of those assumptions are unnecessary.

[Image: Jenga.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
01-07-2016, 11:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:12 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And until we can conclusively rule out that possibility, then that possibility remains as valid as any other because none of the others have been confirmed or ruled out either.

Not really, you can simply apply Occam's Razor to rule out things.

Is a first cause necessary? Nope

Is a first cause a simple natural phenomenon? Could be, we don't know.

Is a first cause a god? Could be, yet we are already anthropomorphizing the question. Why are we assuming any intelligence in a first cause?
We have already made unwarranted assumptions.

Think of all of the other assumptions loaded into the goddidit explanation:

YHWH is the first cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son is that 1st cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son and revealed the Truth to your favorite flavor of Christianity is that 1st cause.

And so on and so forth.

There are a bunch of presuppositions loaded into the goddidit explanation.

Every one of those assumptions are unnecessary.

[Image: Jenga.jpg]

This only works if you can use Occam's Razor to completely rule out First Cause.

Can we do that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:23 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:19 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:12 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Not really, you can simply apply Occam's Razor to rule out things.

Is a first cause necessary? Nope

Is a first cause a simple natural phenomenon? Could be, we don't know.

Is a first cause a god? Could be, yet we are already anthropomorphizing the question. Why are we assuming any intelligence in a first cause?
We have already made unwarranted assumptions.

Think of all of the other assumptions loaded into the goddidit explanation:

YHWH is the first cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son is that 1st cause.

The version of YHWH that had a son and revealed the Truth to your favorite flavor of Christianity is that 1st cause.

And so on and so forth.

There are a bunch of presuppositions loaded into the goddidit explanation.

Every one of those assumptions are unnecessary.

[Image: Jenga.jpg]

This only works if you can use Occam's Razor to completely rule out First Cause.

Can we do that?

Not at all, you can use Occam's Razor to see which has more assumptions.

To insist on a first cause, you have already insisted on a certain answer, this is unnecessary.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:25 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:07 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Okay, so tell me what is unreasonable for a First Cause to be a being of some sort?

Since I rely on science and apistevism, I would say anything that violates the natural laws of the universe would be unreasonable.

My position is this:

Science takes us to the precise instant of the Big Bang. Prior to that instant we can say nothing with any certainty. So I am comfortable saying "I don't know. Maybe someday we will."

I would have to ask you to define the being you are postulating and I will tell you what, if anything, I think is unreasonable.

However, there are things that seem to defy natural explanation. For example, physics has observed how one atom can be in two different positions at the same time.

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

This certainly is evidence that can be used to accept as possible that somethings can indeed defy natural explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Standing by itself, the validity of this statement is difficult to measure.

Our science as it stands, cannot go earlier than the Big Bang. So it could be possible that some thinking entity initiated the BB. However, speculating in that direction usually ends up being a god-of-the-gaps argument. Everything depends on exactly what you are speculating.

My disagreements start when people start preaching a creator god that interacts with mankind.

But the same is true if we speculate on anything else as being the reason for existence in regards to First Cause. Every last speculation on every possibility is, in fact, a god-of-the-gaps position.

Therefore, all are equally valid until proven otherwise.

No, they are not equally probable. That is a fallacy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:23 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:19 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  This only works if you can use Occam's Razor to completely rule out First Cause.

Can we do that?

Not at all, you can use Occam's Razor to see which has more assumptions.

To insist on a first cause, you have already insisted on a certain answer, this is unnecessary.

No, I have insisted on a possibility, not a conclusive reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: