Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

I did not say they were equally probable. There is a difference in validity and probability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 12:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The position is incoherent, and there is no evidence for it.
It's as worthless as positing that someone accepts that pink sparkly unicorns are
responsible for what is observed.

A being, ... superior or not, that "exists",
participates, (and always would have had to) in a Reality that remains unexplained.

It can't "cause" Causality, unless Causality already exists.
Physical reality is not the problem. A god that "exists" *found* itself in an already extant Reality. It can't be the creator of a Reality in which it is required to exist, only partially.

I thought you said you were an old hand at this.
Apparently you're a REALLY REALLY OLD hand at it.

The point is, we do not know.

However, we cannot rule out possibilities when reason enables us to accept that which may be possible.

For example, we do not know how existence came into being with any degree of certainty. Some people adhere to a First Cause effect, while others adhere to a sense of Randomness.

It`s a case of Determinism vrs Indeterminism, and neither has yet been ruled out.

Therefore, if Determinism is a reality, then possibilities for First Cause are endless, and because of that all remain possible. In order for First Cause to be valid, there absolutely would need something to exist that was never created, and can never not exist. This clearly indicates something eternal, which may exist outside of natural laws.

Now the question here is whether or not this something "eternal" could possibly represent something that could be understood as some kind of a god. Not so much the god of the bible or any known religion, but a god of some sort nonetheless.

Therefore, for a First Cause to be what originates all that exists, it must be eternal. It doesn't necessarily mean that the First Cause is, in fact, a god, but rather only gives one to pause that very possibility.

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.

Reason has been proven to be unreliable when dealing with ultimate reality. Relativity, Uncertainty, and some math are non-intuitive. "Reason" determines nothing. Evidence determines what is real. First cause cannot be "eternal", (and you have not defined "eternal" ... good luck with that ... as that REQUIRES time to be in place a priori, for it to be "eternal in", AND it cannot be the cause of the conditions in which it MUST exist. Reality remains unexplained. Your position is incoherent. Causation REQUIRES time. Fail again. If the universe needs a cause, and you have not demonstrated it's necessary, then it's only "proximate cause' (nearest cause) that you can demonstrate, ... not "first (ultimate) cause.

It appears you've been throwing this garbage around so long, you don't even think about what it is you're parroting.

There is no definition of concept of any "god" which is even coherent.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The point is, we do not know.

However, we cannot rule out possibilities when reason enables us to accept that which may be possible.

For example, we do not know how existence came into being with any degree of certainty. Some people adhere to a First Cause effect, while others adhere to a sense of Randomness.

It`s a case of Determinism vrs Indeterminism, and neither has yet been ruled out.

Therefore, if Determinism is a reality, then possibilities for First Cause are endless, and because of that all remain possible. In order for First Cause to be valid, there absolutely would need something to exist that was never created, and can never not exist. This clearly indicates something eternal, which may exist outside of natural laws.

Now the question here is whether or not this something "eternal" could possibly represent something that could be understood as some kind of a god. Not so much the god of the bible or any known religion, but a god of some sort nonetheless.

Therefore, for a First Cause to be what originates all that exists, it must be eternal. It doesn't necessarily mean that the First Cause is, in fact, a god, but rather only gives one to pause that very possibility.

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.

Reason has been proven to be unreliable when dealing with ultimate reality. Relativity, Uncertainty, and some math are non-intuitive. "Reason" determines nothing. Evidence determines what is real. First cause cannot be "eternal", as that REQUIRES time to be in place a priori, for it to be "eternal in", AND it cannot be the cause of the conditions in which it MUST exist. Reality remains unexplained. Your position is incoherent. Causation REQUIRES time. Fail again. If the universe needs a cause, and you have not demonstrated it's necessary, then it's only "proximate cause' (nearest cause) you can demonstrate, ... not "first (ultimate) cause.

It appears you've been trowing this garbage around so long, you don't even think about what it is you're parroting.

There is no definition of concept of any "god" which is even coherent.

All you have managed to express here is that you do not support Determinism, which necessarily implies that you swing towards the Indeterminism camp.

Now, please demonstrate why Indetrminism/Randomness must be the answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 12:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:08 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Jesus as a mere man is not unreasonable. People being actual witches IS
unreasonable.

IN YOUR OPINION. Not in the opinion of those who claimed to be witnesses.
Jesus didn't get observed "as just a man". He was a miracle worker, and they claimed he had risen. THAT is no "just a man". They are inseparable. Nice try again. Fail again.

It's not the OBJECTS or events that need to be similar, it's what the witnesses are claiming to have witnessed, different or not. You fail to grasp the point. You are desperate, obviously.

Quote:In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

No. It's about the what the witnesses have claimed to have seen and the similarity of the witness's claims, not what they claimed to have seen.

Quote:There is no analogy there at all. It's false.

You wish there weren't. There is. Totally. Witnesses can be totally unreliable, as any court knows. Your "multiple" ones, are no better than the ones who said they saw witches.

Quote:And this is what your belief system- Mythicism- does to your mind.

I'm not a mythicist. I like to see fool theists squirm.
STILL waiting for you to address Carrier's and Price's and Ehrman's arguments.
You can't, I see.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Reason has been proven to be unreliable when dealing with ultimate reality. Relativity, Uncertainty, and some math are non-intuitive. "Reason" determines nothing. Evidence determines what is real. First cause cannot be "eternal", as that REQUIRES time to be in place a priori, for it to be "eternal in", AND it cannot be the cause of the conditions in which it MUST exist. Reality remains unexplained. Your position is incoherent. Causation REQUIRES time. Fail again. If the universe needs a cause, and you have not demonstrated it's necessary, then it's only "proximate cause' (nearest cause) you can demonstrate, ... not "first (ultimate) cause.

It appears you've been trowing this garbage around so long, you don't even think about what it is you're parroting.

There is no definition of concept of any "god" which is even coherent.

All you have managed to express here is that you do not support Determinism, which necessarily implies that you swing towards the Indeterminism camp.

Now, please demonstrate why Indetrminism/Randomness must be the answer.

I have done no such thing. You don't even know what I'm talking about gramps.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:08 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Jesus as a mere man is not unreasonable. People being actual witches IS
unreasonable.

IN YOUR OPINION. Not in the opinion of those who claimed to be witnesses.

So who's opinion is more reasonable; mine or those who claimed to observe the practice of magic?

Can you prove that magic is real with any example at all? Can you provide 1 example that real magic exists?

It's easy to prove that a person can exist because currently we have 7,000,000,000 examples.

Can you see the error in your analogy now?

Quote:Jesus didn't get observed "as just a man".

He is recorded by multiple attestations as being a human, who died via cruxcifixion.

Quote:He was a miracle worker, and they claimed to have risen. THAT is no "just a man".

Yet we do not have enough multiple attestations of this outside the gospels, do we? This is the part that you need to recognize as being highly improbable since those tales themselves not only defy reason, but are not supported in human history as being possible due to the fact we have only the gospel records (Synoptics & John) saying anything about magic being ascribed to him.

You cannot compare these embellishments of the man to the multiple attestations exterior to the Gospel records which do not share this miracle worker story, but all agree on his mere existence and crucifixion.

That's a false comparison.

Quote:It's not the OBJECTS or events that need to be similar, it's what the witnesses are claiming to have witnessed, different or not. You fail to grasp the point. You are desperate, obviously.

Not desperate about anything. Simply pointing out the flaws in how you evaluate evidence.

Quote:
Quote:In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

No. It's about the what the witnesses are claimed to have seen and the similarity of the witness's claims, not what they claimed to have seen.

Again, it is obvious that you are trying to exclude other evidence in favor of a gospel only record to make your point.

That doesn't work here.

Quote:
Quote:There is no analogy there at all. It's false.

You wish there weren't. There is. Totally. Witnesses can be totally unreliable, as any court knows. You "multiple" ones, are no better than the ones who said they saw witches.

And again your attempt to compare the mere existence of a person to claims of witchcraft utterly fails the logic and reasoning process.

Quote:
Quote:And this is what your belief system- Mythicism- does to your mind.

I'm not a mythicist. I like to see fool theists squirm.
STILL waiting for you to address Carrier's and Price's and Ehrman's arguments.
You can't, I see.

I am not about to go off reading multiple books just to argue a simple point. Carrier is regarded as fool in this genre and can be dismissed completely, but Price and Ehrman are credible, with Ehrman accepting the possibility that Jesus did actually exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 12:04 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:25 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Not at all, only if you dont understand the article you linked yourself, or just read the headlines respectively, which i would call "sloppy research". The link you provided says nothing what you claimed here. It just demonstrated that physics on a very small scale is counter intuitive. You messed up "counter intuitive" with "not natural" a common mistake by people who lack scientific education. Quantum physics is, while being counter intuitive, entirely natural, because it has been observed, tested, predicted and theoreticized.
What the Bonn team did is try out how "big" objects possible can be affected by effects of quantum mechanics. They started off with a complete caesium atom, which is pretty "big" for a start, tryed to move it and found out they can observe the quantum effect of superposition which means that an object can be at multiple locations until is is being observed.
They next step they want to do is to move the atom several millimeters apart, trying to observe quantum effects. My (personal) prediction is: they wont see that. Quantum mechanics can not be observed at such large scales.

And thats why here we have again somebody who either doesnt read the scientific link he provides or doesnt understand what he links, yes im talking about you.

P.S.: and when you keep going about
Quote: a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists
please demonstrate how such a being can "exist" without space and time, because both of them have broken down at the very earliest stage of the universe. They break down at a scale so small that quantum physics has to be applied. The same quantum physics whos basic premises you dont seem to have understood.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:01 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:25 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Not at all, only if you dont understand the article you linked yourself, or just read the headlines respectively, which i would call "sloppy research". The link you provided says nothing what you claimed here. It just demonstrated that physics on a very small scale is counter intuitive. You messed up "counter intuitive" with "not natural" a common mistake by people who lack scientific education. Quantum physics is, while being counter intuitive, entirely natural, because it has been observed, tested, predicted and theoreticized.
What the Bonn team did is try out how "big" objects possible can be affected by effects of quantum mechanics. They started off with a complete caesium atom, which is pretty "big" for a start, tryed to move it and found out they can observe the quantum effect of superposition which means that an object can be at multiple locations until is is being observed.
They next step they want to do is to move the atom several millimeters apart, trying to observe quantum effects. My (personal) prediction is: they wont see that. Quantum mechanics can not be observed at such large scales.

And thats why here we have again somebody who either doesnt read the scientific link he provides or doenst understand what he links.

P.S.: and when you keep going about
Quote: a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists
please demonstrate how such a being can "exist" without space and time, because both of them have broken down at the very earliest stage of the universe. They break down at a scale so small that quantum physics has to be applied. The same quantum physics whos basic premises you dont seem to have understood.

If you would have actually read the article, you may have noticed the link further down that continues the story:

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-atom-quantu....html#nRlv
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  For example, we do not know how existence came into being with any degree of certainty. Some people adhere to a First Cause effect, while others adhere to a sense of Randomness.

"Come into being" is a meaningless set of words. Coming into being requires time, a priori.

Quote:Now the question here is whether or not this something "eternal" could possibly represent something that could be understood as some kind of a god. Not so much the god of the bible or any known religion, but a god of some sort nonetheless.

That's your question. It's not my question. I don't deal in incoherent, undefined nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  All you have managed to express here is that you do not support Determinism, which necessarily implies that you swing towards the Indeterminism camp.

Now, please demonstrate why Indetrminism/Randomness must be the answer.

I have done no such thing. You don't even know what I'm talking about gramps.

No, it is clear that you oppose First Cause. Your previous post reeks of opposition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: