Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: duffyd on 09/05/2020 05:56:01
-
How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration. My questions stem from the vaguery as the rules stand now.
The following are rules are in place to make this forum a more comfortable place for all its users. We would urge all users of the forum to read the rules below, and abide by them.
1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.
A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.
Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted? Many varied "religious" theories are promoted by different participants. When are they evangelizing a pet theory or just discussing it?
Many comments are deliberate, untrue and aggressively insulting of spiritual matters and those who make them. The rule governing all of our statements forbids this type of language, yet some continue doing so flaunting their defiance.
How are we to know, specifically, if/when we are violating this particular rule, "evangelizing a pet theory" on N.S.?
If someone makes untrue, insulting accusations against spiritual opinions, persons, principles or their historic background, is everyone forbidden from responding, trying to make corrections?
If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so? What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail?
Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?
-
The rule says:
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.
I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
-
The rule says:
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.
I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
Thanks. I appreciate your effort to address these issues. Still, I confess, I'm baffled. I don't know where the lines are drawn and the rules were established for the comfort of all here. I am not comfortable at all when my comments are removed and I'm told not to evangelize while other statements I make are fine. I do not intentionally make comments that are in violation of the rules, so that's why I'm confused and asking for very definitive input.
At that the same time very hostile, nasty, bitter, sarcastic language used by quite a few participants flourish and thrive throughout the same pages.
-
I tried to correct some grammatical errors but when I clicked on save nothing happened
-
How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration.
I would agree, but I would ask you to think carefully and ask yourself whether your topics are about spirituality in general or whether you are just promoting your specific spirituality eg Christianity.
If you are just promoting Christianity then you are evangelising and we would take the same attitude with any other religious group.
CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.
True, but at the end of the day we are not a platform for advertising your faith, no matter how important it is for you.
1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
What might appear aggressive to one person might no to another. For example, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you called me a liar. Do you consider that aggressive?
A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.
Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted?
No, it is specifically left vague.
Usually it applies to a new/alternative theories (remember, we are a science site), but even established alternative theories eg flat earth, can become a pet theory. It is more about the attitude of the poster and how they promote their theory.
What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail?
You also ask why a specific post might be removed and another left.
Again, no, it is specifically left vague. It is at the discretion of the individual moderator and some posts might be borderline and left, while another removed.
Much will come down to the use of language - eg does this sound like preaching; is it evangelising a particular religion. Many of your posts sound as though you are just expounding your faith and encouraging others to join you, rather than entering into rational debate.
I and the other moderators recognise that this means a lot to you and you have been given a lot of leeway, but the more you make these appeals, the more you will find censures.
If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so?
No, but if they ignore or misrepresent scientific evidence they should expect to be challenged.
Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?
the idea of ‘the lighter side’ including ‘just chat’ and ‘new theories’ was intended to offer a wider discussion area.
You will notice that there is for example a discussion on universal moral standard, but if anyone there began to continually profess that we should use a specific religion as our standard, or that we should follow a specific religion eg “accept Jesus as our Lord”, etc, then we would judge that they were evangelising.
Again, I would ask whether you are interested in discussing spirituality or just your specific religious beliefs. The latter can easily be seen as evangelising.
PS, ‘save’ should work, but in the current crisis there is often a lot of traffic on the servers and network response delays can cause failed actions. Give it another try.
-
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
I would ask everyone interested in this topic to note that nothing is mentioned about such language. It permeates CHAT. Aggressive, insulting and demeaning comments are directed at me from several including a moderator and all of it is against the rules. Just look at the last few weeks (actually, it has been going on since the second day I joined this organization) in CHAT on topics related to God. Just read what is communicated. I have been hounded, repeatedly, by several without one word of warning by a mod. Is there a double standard, especially when a moderator joins in? when more than a few continually engage in such behavior including a moderator?
The rules state we are not to evangelize a pet theory. I asked, are we evangelizing if we are not discussing a pet theory but well-formed, established, firmly held opinions? This was not addressed.
Advertising? How are we to discuss a topic and express our point of view when doing so is classified as advertising? Others promote hatred, negativity, and misinformation against spiritual content and those who present such information constantly. Isn't that evangelizing/advertising? Their tone is often pure delight at mocking others.
I have asked a couple of the offenders to stop and informed them I would not respond to them for calling me a liar. As a result, they have accused me of refusing to engage in discussion.
A moderator told me I don't have the reasoning/verbal skills worthy of his interacting with me.
One person left a link for someone else and then accused me of ignoring it for fear I'd be proven wrong. When challenged, the person said the link was on a public page. I don't respond to everything on every page.
My spirituality has nothing to do with any religion. I don't belong to any religion. Where is the respect demanded of all of us by Chris?
-
"Usually it applies to a new/alternative theories (remember, we are a science site)" c
CHAT is not a scientific site according to the rules
-
I and the other moderators recognise that this means a lot to you and you have been given a lot of leeway, but the more you make these appeals, the more you will find censures. c
Appeal! I asked for clarification.
And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?
-
I would agree, but I would ask you to think carefully and ask yourself whether your topics are about spirituality in general or whether you are just promoting your specific spirituality eg Christianity. c
Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?
"If you are just promoting Christianity" c
If my spirituality seems similar to what you call "Christianity", why am I censored for my opinions? Christianity is a term used to describe a religion and I have nothing to do with a religion of any kind.
"then you are evangelising and we would take the same attitude with any other religious group."
I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.
-
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
I would ask everyone interested in this topic to note that nothing is mentioned about such language. It permeates CHAT. Aggressive, insulting and demeaning comments are directed at me from several including a moderator and all of it is against the rules. Just look at the last few weeks (actually, it has been going on since the second day I joined this organization) in CHAT on topics related to God. Just read what is communicated. I have been hounded, repeatedly, by several without one word of warning by a mod. Is there a double standard, especially when a moderator joins in? when more than a few continually engage in such behavior including a moderator?
The rules state we are not to evangelize a pet theory. I asked, are we evangelizing if we are not discussing a pet theory but well-formed, established, firmly held opinions? This was not addressed.
Advertising? How are we to discuss a topic and express our point of view when doing so is classified as advertising? Others promote hatred, negativity, and misinformation against spiritual content and those who present such information constantly. Isn't that evangelizing/advertising? Their tone is often pure delight at mocking others.
I have asked a couple of the offenders to stop and informed them I would not respond to them for calling me a liar. As a result, they have accused me of refusing to engage in discussion.
A moderator told me I don't have the reasoning/verbal skills worthy of his interacting with me.
"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin
One person left a link for someone else and then accused me of ignoring it for fear I'd be proven wrong. When challenged, the person said the link was on a public page. I don't respond to everything on every page.
My spirituality has nothing to do with any religion. I don't belong to any religion. Where is the respect demanded of all of us by Chris?
"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin
-
Would anyone care to put forward tentative definitions of "God", "credible", and "evidence"?
-
"If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it." Alan about me
"I must say, you have some really odd hobbies!
Point taken however." colin's response
-
One way to address proof of God, is by using a well accepted and proven theory of science called Special Relativity. This theory was developed by Albert Einstein. In this theory, velocity has an impact on our perception of mass, distance, and time in other references. For example, a clock in a moving reference will appear to run slower relative to the same clock in a stationary reference. There are three equations one for mass, distance and time as show below:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citycollegiate.com%2Frelativity5.gif&hash=9e0a4f54890470fb033b70023cf69396)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citycollegiate.com%2Frelativity6.gif&hash=1525caf35d82ef125b4c976ac46985ae)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citycollegiate.com%2Frelativity7.gif&hash=3af1a84a82c7a8eaed9d55fba7c1304e)
In bible tradition, God is not matter but it referred to as spirit. Spirit is not easy to define, but matter can be defined since this tangible and addressable by science. We can address spirit by what it is not. It is not matter.
If we plug the speed of light or c, into the first equation for mass, we get a value of infinite. It would take infinite energy to make any size mass move at the speed of light. According to Einstein, the speed of light is the cutoff, where mass and matter no longer apply. Although I cannot exactly explain spirit, I can at least infer that spirit would needs to exist where mass becomes discontinuous. Spirit would need to be connected to a speed of light reference. To paraphrase Jesus, he said where I am going you cannot follow, since mass cannot go there according to Einstein. Only spirit can exist there.
If we then plug c into the equations for time and distance, which are the two attributes connected to space-time reference, again an infinity discontinuity appears within time and distance. This logically implies that at the speed of light there is also a discontinuity in space-time, since the two components of space-time are both discontinuous. In tradition, God is eternal, which is the same as infinite time and the speed of light reference.
If mass does not exist and space-time was to be become discontinuous, then the inertial relationships between space and time, that we define as space-time, breaks down. This means that time and space would no longer be connected, in a way where one implies the other. Rather, at the discontinuity at c, time and space could act independently of each other.
If we could move in time without the constraint of space, one would know the history of every place in the universe; simultaneously. This is classically called omniscience. If we can move in space without the constraint of time, this is called omnipresent.
The classical attributes of God; spirit, omniscience and omnipresence, came centuries before science and special relativity. These were revealed in prophesy, at a time before science. Einstein's math, which is accepted and proven by science, leads to the same conceptual type conclusions, if you plug in the speed of light. QED.
-
One way to address proof of God
After this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God. All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this....
Still looking for evidence.
-
Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God. So why are you simply complaining about the moderation? Get on with the evidence.
-
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?
Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
-
Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God. So why are you simply complaining about the moderation? Get on with the evidence.
I am raising these issues because I'm trying to do exactly that. No matter what I include in my comments I'm mocked/insulted by several including a mod. I have my comments removed and then I'm warned that if I continue to evangelize I will be banned. Therefore, because I am not clear what it was specifically I said that was different from my other comments that weren't removed, and I wasn't threatened with banishment for making them, I asked for clarification and I still don't know what I'm allowed to say and what is forbidden. The moderator Colin said the rules are intentionally vague. It is more the tone. Then, the mod told me he and others gave me leeway. Apparently, some comments were borderline. If enough are close to the edge and I don't know why, I can easily say the wrong things.
I also pointed out how many comments are aggressively insulting toward me which violates the rules and nothing is done. The rules are not enforced equally, across the board, I believe, especially when a moderator who removes my comments joins in the insults.
-
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?
Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
-
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?
Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
Others have decided it is all a big joke and worse and not just occasionally. When I present information to the contrary, I'm insulted by more than a few and face being banned. I am uncomfortable which is the opposite of the publicly stated goal of the rules according to Chris.
-
Appeal! I asked for clarification.
And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?
Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?
I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.
We are not here to argue the toss with you, nor do we have to give definitive answers.
You asked for clarification and that has been given. The ‘rules’ are sufficiently broad to give us the leeway to decide what is or is not acceptable usage.
Just a couple of comments for further clarification then that’s it.
You say “Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial?”. No, for the person who believes in a flat earth, they are just as passionate and committed to their ideas as you are. They just cannot provide credible evidence.
You say “I am not a part of any group. ........ I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate”. But you have identified yourself as part of a group (set) that believes in a particular god and a son of god called Jesus. The problem when discussing religions is that it is very easy for the enthusiast to cross the line into evangelising. You may not like the term, but that’s what it is.
No one is questioning the truth of your spirituality or of your belief, but proof of belief is not proof of the existence of that which is believed in.
-
Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
I doubt it.
When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.
We have also been treated to some false reasoning.
-
When I present information to the contrary,
You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".
So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.
-
I believe, especially when a moderator who removes my comments joins in the insults.
What insults?
-
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?
Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Please learn to use the quote function properly
-
Appeal! I asked for clarification.
And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?
Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?
I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.
"We are not here to argue the toss with you, (*I have not sought your input.) nor do we have to give definitive answers.
You asked for clarification and that has been given. The ‘rules’ are sufficiently broad to give us the leeway to decide what is or is not acceptable usage."
I did not ask you to comment let alone argue. I presented this to everyone seeking the input of anyone who can advise me so that I don't make comments that I am not allowed to make.
"Just a couple of comments for further clarification then that’s it."
I am still unclear. Thanks for your effort. Don't feel pressured to continue to present your views. I am not seeking nor anticipating clarification from you and do not seek anything from you.
"You say “Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial?”. No, for the person who believes in a flat earth, they are just as passionate and committed to their ideas as you are. They just cannot provide credible evidence."
I have tried to present evidence for my position. In return I'm a target and the rules are repeatedly violated along the way
The rule says we are not to evangelize our petty theory. "Petty", "trivial", "inconsequential" along those lines is the way I interpret petty. I wanted/want to know if our "theory" or opinion is not petty, if it is something substantial, that we've researched, that we have examined and have decided that it is viable (not petty), are we "evangelizing" if we discuss it vs a trivial subject that is evangelized?
"You say “I am not a part of any group. ........ I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate”. But you have identified yourself as part of a group (set) that believes in a particular god and a son of god called Jesus."
"The problem when discussing religions is that it is very easy for the enthusiast to cross the line into evangelising. You may not like the term, but that’s what it is." c
Others identified me as such and have not ceased to insult me ever since then.
That's why I am asking, "when am I crossing the line?" I don't want to violate the rules.
"No one is questioning the truth of your spirituality or of your belief, but proof of belief is not proof of the existence of that which is believed in." c
I disagree. The truth or the validity of what I think is a target by more than a few. In trying to back up why I think as I do, I face being banned and have had my comments removed. One person said Christ didn't die during his crucifixion. It was faked and his buddies played along because they wanted to increase their power to mistreat and murder people.
No matter what I would say in response, I'd be mocked further and criticized for refusing to abide by the rules, unwilling to debate or told I'm evangelizing.
The Nicean Council did not write the New Testament. I made that statement and others just like it and in reply I got nonsense. And, then I'm condemned for not really wanting to debate in good faith by more than a few.
My comments are mocked, demeaned, degraded, twisted, and used as bait by more than a few. Calling me a liar, then expecting me to respond to comments like, "God didn't part the water. It was a troll named Gretchen" (I'm paraphrasing) and being attacked for not engaging in debate over that comment. I believe that falls outside the bounds of the letter and the spirit of the rules.
Please don't misinterpret my response. I do not direct my thoughts to anyone in particular. I am trying to present issues that I think N.S. should address as a whole.
If someone questions the accuracy of my position regarding my interaction with others, visit CHAT and the recently posted topics related to God
-
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
I actually believe it. I was presenting information that supported my view that the N.T. is reliable for many reasons including the fact the earliest followers of Christ were utterly and inexplicably transformed from defeated, depressed, hopeless cowards into brave, bold, determined, leaders who went on to revolutionize the world. By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life" and I asked you not to direct your comments to me in the future or respond to me any more and that I wasn't going to respond to you. I've received 75 to 100 comments from you despite my request. Most are insulting and sarcastic.
Mind your own business, please. I will use the commenting format of my choosing.
-
When I present information to the contrary,
You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".
So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.
I disagree.
-
logo
HomeNews & Articles
The Tomb Was Empty — You Can Trust the Easter Story
The Tomb Was Empty — You Can Trust the Easter Story
By Dr. Tom Synder, Editor
*Editor’s Note: In light of the celebration of Easter, Movieguide® is running this article that was originally posted in 2019.
In recent years, there have been several movies and television programs focusing on Jesus and His Gospel, including A.D.: THE BIBLE CONTINUES, RISEN, THE YOUNG MESSIAH, and TYLER PERRY PRESENTS THE PASSION.
The question arises, therefore:
Can you trust what the Bible says about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Passover, Good Friday and Easter stories in the New Testament documents?
Top scholars, historians, and experts have repeatedly confirmed that the Bible is the most historically and intellectually reliable ancient text in the whole world, including the Bible’s account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and disciples who wrote the New Testament documents. Consider, for example, the work of numerous top scholars, historians and experts such as C.S. Lewis, Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, John A.T. Robinson, John Warwick Montgomery, Bruce Metzger, Simon Greenleaf, Stuart C. Hackett, J. Gresham Machen, Ronald Nash, Edwin Yamauchi, Craig Blomberg, John Wenham, Lee Strobel, Paul Maier, Michael R. Licona, and N.T. Wright.
These people are wonderfully astute thinkers, investigators and writers. They have refuted all of the important lies, half-truths, and silly comments against Jesus, Christianity and the Bible made by non-Christians and even by some allegedly former Christians.
Not only can you have complete faith in the New Testament documents and what they say about the virgin birth, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus Christ, but you can also rely on what they say about non-Christian places, people and events, such as the names and titles of Roman government officials. In fact, the New Testament writer Luke (the books of Luke and Acts), the medical companion of Paul, an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ Himself and accepted by Christ’s other major apostles, including Peter, specifically says in Luke 1:3 that he “carefully investigated everything” he writes in Luke and Acts to Theophilus and other assumed readers.
In a court of law, the burden of proof for denying the credibility of an eyewitness falls on those who wish to undermine that credibility. An eyewitness should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt “unless we have clear evidence to the contrary.”1 Since, however, the New Testament books make great demands on people and their lifestyles, it seems fair to ask what is the evidence to support the historical reliability of these ancient documents.
Historians use two standard tests for determining the reliability of an ancient document like the New Testament documents.
The first test is the bibliographic test. This test asks three questions: 1) How many copies and fragments of copies do we have of a particular document? 2) Are the copies basically the same, or do they show a wide variety of differences, indicating they have undergone an extensive amount of editing or redaction? 3) What is the time gap between the dates of the copies we have and the approximate date on which the document was probably written? The more copies we have, the less editing they have undergone, and the closer the time gap, the more accurate they seem to be and the more reliable the text of the document is.
Using this test, how does the New Testament stack up?
As biblical scholar John A.T. Robinson and other scholars attest, the New Testament books were probably written between 40 A.D. and 70 A.D., although some scholars believe the Apostle John wrote John and Revelation about 95 A.D. or so. The earliest complete copies we have, excluding small fragments, some of which are dated from about 44 A.D. to 130 A.D., can be dated between 300 and 400 A.D., or 260-360 years later. In total, however, we have more than 5,000 Greek copies and fragments, 10,000 Latin Vulgate copies and fragments, and 9,000 other versions of the New Testament dated between 40 and 1200 A.D. In comparison, we have only 643 manuscripts (copies and fragments) of Homer’s Iliad, written about 900 BC, with the earliest extant copy dated 400 BC, 500 years later. Also, we have only ten copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, written 58 to 50 BC, with the earliest copy dated 900 A.D., a gap of almost 1,000 years, and only 21 copies or fragments of the works of Tacitus, written about 100 A.D., with the earliest copy or fragment dated 1000 A.D., a span of 900 years.
According to New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, only 40 lines, or about 400 words, of the 20,000 lines in the New Testament documents are seriously in doubt. In contrast, Homer’s Iliad contains approximately 15,600 lines, but 764 lines have been questioned by scholars. As, Christian scholar and philosopher Norman L. Geisler writes, “The New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text.”2
Copies of manuscripts are not the only source of our knowledge about the New Testament documents, however.
Before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers contain about 32,000 citations of the New Testament text. “Virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers,” says Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland.3 Furthermore, although every church father does not quote every book of the New Testament, every book is quoted as authoritative and authentic by some important church father. This indicates that the New Testament writings were “recognized as apostolic [originating from Jesus Christ’s own appointed church leaders] from the very beginning.”4
There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament. The bibliographic test clearly shows that the text of the New Testament has not been significantly altered by the Christian church. We can trust that the translations we now have are as close to the original writings as possible.
The second test historians use to determine the reliability of an ancient document is the external test. In this test, historians look at what external sources say about the document.
We have already mentioned the testimony of the early church fathers with regard to the bibliographic test. Their testimony also satisfies the external test.
For instance, several second century fathers affirm that the book of John in the New Testament was written by the Apostle John. These writers include Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian of Carthage.
The testimony of Irenaeus is important “because he had been a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (martyred in 156 A.D. after being a Christian for 86 years), and Polycarp in turn had been a disciple of the Apostle John himself.”5 Not only does Irenaeus affirm the authorship of John’s gospel, he also reports that Matthew produced his gospel for the Jews, perhaps in Aramaic, while Peter and Paul were founding the Christian church in Rome (about 55 A.D.). Irenaeus also writes that Mark, Peter’s disciple, set down his gospel after Peter’s death, around 65 A.D., and that Paul’s friend Luke wrote his gospel sometime thereafter. In a letter to his colleague Florinus, quoted by church historian Eusebius, Irenaeus mentions how both he and Florinus had heard Polycarp talk about what John and other witnesses had told Polycarp about Jesus.
According to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, writing between 130 and 140 A.D., the Apostle Matthew compiled a collection of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic, which Papias says many people later translated into Greek. Papias also testifies that the Apostle John told Papias that Mark composed his gospel on the basis of information supplied by the Apostle Peter himself.
Another source that satisfies the external test is the Old Testament prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled during His time on Earth. Old Testament verses such as Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 53:1-12, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Isaiah 50:5-9, Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Daniel 9:25-27, and Daniel 7:13-14. By fulfilling these prophecies, Jesus presents another testimony in His favor.
Finally, we have the Apostle Paul’s testimony in his own letters, which are among the earliest of all New Testament writings. Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been dated as early as 48 A.D. The dates of his other letters may be established as follows: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 A.D.; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 54-56 A.D.; Romans, 57 A.D.; and Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, around 60 A.D. Many scholars, including more liberal ones, believe that Paul’s description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 can be traced back to an ancient catechism from the early to middle 30s A.D.! There are many other early creedal passages in the New Testament documents like this one from 1 Corinthians, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and John 1:1-18.
The New Testament gospels are also consistent with the external evidence from ancient non-Christian sources. Even the Jewish Talmud contains references to Jesus Christ and five of the disciples. These references say Jesus was a sorcerer who led the people astray and who came to add things to the Jewish law. Eventually, they say, Jesus was executed on the eve of Passover for heresy and for misleading the Jewish people. Following his death, his disciples healed the sick in his name.6
Although portions of his text are in doubt, Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about 90 A.D., mentions John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James, the brother of Jesus. According to New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce, we have “very good reason for believing”7 that Josephus confirms the dates of Christ’s ministry, his reputation for practicing “wonders” of some kind, his kinship to James, his crucifixion by Pilate, his messianic claim, and the fact that his disciples believed Jesus rose physically from the dead.
Cornelius Tacitus, the “greatest Roman historian in the days of the Empire,”8 refers to Jesus Christ’s execution under Pilate and relates Roman Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians after the great fire ravaged Rome in 64 A.D. Also, writing in 112 A.D., C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to Emperor Trajan asking for advice about how to deal with troublesome Christians. In his letter, Pliny reports that the Christians meet on a fixed day to pray to Christ as God and promise each other to follow certain moral standards. He also says they refuse to curse the name of Jesus. The evidence from Pliny, and others, clearly shows that the Early Christians did indeed worship Jesus Christ as God. This worship is confirmed by the writings of Ignatius, a major leader of the early Christian church.
The New Testament writings are themselves full of references to secular history in the first century. Archeological evidence confirms many of these references to historical events and persons and to political factions, geographical areas, social differences, etc. For instance, the Apostle John in his gospel displays accurate knowledge about buildings and landscapes in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside before 70 A.D. Luke, the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts, has been especially cited for his sense of the historical context in the first century A.D. His books contain many references to the imperial history of Rome and a detailed chronicle of the Herod family. Luke is also very accurate in his use of various official titles in the Roman Empire, no mean feat considering the fact they sometimes changed titles in a short period of time during switchovers in administrations. Also, according to one study Luke accurately shows knowledge of some “32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands.”9
Luke’s description of the founding and rise of the Christian church in Acts also matches what we know from other historical writings and archeology. Acts itself contains several instances where the apostles and various local churches receive reports from other Christians about efforts to spread the message of Jesus Christ. This habit of giving reports adds to the historical credibility of the New Testament accounts. Thus, as St. Paul notes in Chapter 26 of Acts, all these things were not done in a corner, they were common knowledge.
The writers of the New Testament, most of whom knew Jesus personally, had a strong motive to obey the warnings of the Roman and Jewish authorities to stop preaching about Jesus. Instead, these men did the opposite and risked their lives and physical well-being to preach the good news of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. They preached repeatedly and openly in the Jewish synagogues, leaving themselves vulnerable to the hostile Jewish religious leadership.
“The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies,” says historian John Warwick Montgomery, “which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”10 Yet they never hesitated to confront Jewish leaders, hostile pagan forces, and even the Roman authorities. They endured rejection, persecution, torture, and even death. If their testimony was full of holes, how could they have gotten away with such bad testimony? If the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not occur, how do we account for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances by Jesus?
The Jews and pagans who opposed the apostles had the means, motive, and opportunity to completely refute the evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection and the content of His teachings, yet they never could shake the eyewitness testimony of the first Christian evangelists. These hostile witnesses failed to produce the kind of solid evidence that would overturn the first Christians’ testimony about Jesus Christ, including the meaning of Jesus Christ’s life and sacrificial death on the cross. Thus, the eyewitnesses among Christ’s disciples passed the test of their own cross-examination with flying colors!
According to the New Testament documents, Jesus Christ proved his claim to be God by his bodily resurrection from the dead and gave his disciples “many convincing proofs that he was alive (Acts 1:3).” He appeared to more than 500 people at one time, most of whom were still living over 15 years later, when the Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-6). He also appeared to nonbelievers and hostile skeptics like his brother James, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Thomas. He also gave special authority and power to all of his apostles, who themselves performed public miracles.
Finally, the New Testament writings are internally consistent. None of the documents deny the resurrection and most of them explicitly proclaim it. Although the documents contain passages that are difficult to interpret or create questions about the text, many books have been written which clear up these textual problems. Among the best ones are John W. Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House) and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
Even if someone could prove there are unresolvable problems in the New Testament text, however, “they cannot be used as evidence to prove that the resurrection did not take place.” Neither would they necessarily affect essential Christian teachings. For example, Greek historian Polybius and Roman historian Livy disagree over what route Hannibal took when he crossed the Alps, but both agree he arrived in Italy.
The fact is, the New Testament documents do agree with one another. They do not contradict each other. All of them teach the following: Jesus underwent a public execution. His death was certified by the Roman authorities. He was placed in a private tomb, the location of which was known. Jesus then appeared to his female disciples and to the male apostles. He commanded them to lead all people into repentance, belief and forgiveness of sins in the name of the Triune God (Matthew 28:18-20). The internal consistency of these documents in these matters is beyond reproach.
When all is said and done, the evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament documents is in fact better than the evidence for Julius Caesar or any other historical figure in the ancient world.
“We are confronted with a hard core of historical fact,” writes F. F. Bruce: “(a) the tomb was really empty; (b) the Lord appeared to various individuals and groups of disciples both in Judea and Galilee; (c) the Jewish authorities could not disprove the disciples’ claim that He had risen from the dead.”12
Adds Bruce Metzger,
***“The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
Bruce Metzger is considered the finest New Testament scholar of textual criticism in the world in the 20th century.
Nero is well known in China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, The Crimea? Jesus is the most recognized name in the world. (Am I preaching?)
-
When I present information to the contrary,
You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".
So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.
I disagree.
It is an insulting observation.
-
When I present information to the contrary,
You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".
So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.
Keep reading
-
If someone questions the accuracy of my position regarding my interaction with others, visit CHAT and the recently posted topics related to God
OK, let's do that.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79132.msg599647;topicseen#msg599647
You said that I had refused to do something when, in fact, I had already done it.
-
I actually believe it.
You believe that there is better evidence that the apostles believed Jesus was resurrected than that Nero was emperor.
Really?
In spite of the fact that I could get the evidence for one of them, and post it to you?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Roman-coin-Nero/164188947201?hash=item263a6c8301:g:kSUAAOSwFb5aLnpU
Show me the equivalent evidence for the Apostles belief.
(And I remind you that, of course, teh Apostles had a pretty good reason to lie.)
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans.
Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
I doubt it.
When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.
We have also been treated to some false reasoning.
"You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans."
A moderator never rebuked the participant who said this about me nor did he remove it. No warning. Nothing.
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
The preferred method of science is to do experiments, which can then be reproduced by others, in the same (or slightly different) conditions, to produce a confirmed, published and reproducible result.
However, when it comes to an event in history (like the death and claimed resurrection of Jesus), this preferred method falls down. We can't just run experiments, rerunning history with variations - that is outside our control.
Some areas of science are like that - Astronomy and Geology, for example. We can't rerun the history of the Earth, or create stars of our own*.
So, when it comes to non-reproduce-able events, scientists adopt a modified method - they try to collect as much evidence as they can, from different sources, and attempt to build a credible picture. Other scientists will collect slightly different aspects of the data. But the goal is to produce a consensus view among experts in the field, applying the techniques of evidence and analysis. The consensus is often formed in the heat of fiery debate.
Historical events fall into this area where we must apply a modified scientific method, to look at events that appeared in the past.
While scientists have, at times resorted to insults to win debates, we don't permit that here.
- Requiring evidence is not an insult
- Setting a high bar for the evidence is expected
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- Some of the evidence quoted above is based on analysis of ancient texts, which can be rather opaque to those who don't read those languages.
- While a coin minted during the reign of Nero is understandable by everyone
Overall, keep down the snide comments, and try to address the requests for evidence.
*At least, in Astronomy, we can look into space, and see stars of different ages, and piece together their life history from looking at many different stars.
- In Geology, we are (so far) very restricted in the number of other worlds we can look at to compare with Earth
-
When I present information to the contrary,
You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".
So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.
I disagree.
When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said. One reason I don't like to interact with you, and there are quite a few, is that you change what I've said.
For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
-
You did not present information.
You made a statement
This is an other reason I don't respond to you. "You did not present information.
You made a statement..." bc
I quoted a scholar. That is information. I shouldn't have to explain that.
-
When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said.
You first.
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain ...
Thanks for the meaningless clarification.
Did you quote that scholar because you thought he was lying?
That would be odd, because you have subsequently said you believe it.
If I say " Einstein said E=MC^2", i am tacitly making that statement.
I am certainly making a statement to that effect (I chose my words carefully)
Do you not understand that "nothing is more certain" is equivalent to nothing is better proved?
quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
And , in my original reply to that I pointed out the problems
Firstly
" a world renown scholar,"Is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
Secondly, what the apostles believed isn't the issue here- they might have been mistaken (they might have believed what they wanted to believe).
Thirdly, and most importantly, the assertion you reported is obviously untrue.
"Nothing in history is more certain than that ..."
Plenty of things in history are more certain than that- for example, the fact that Nero was emperor of Rome.
(In fact, his statement is more general and more absurd. Is it really more certain that, for example, "Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1953"?)
And yet you say you believe it...
-
I quoted a scholar. That is information. I shouldn't have to explain that.
A man said something, that may be information of a sort, but it is hearsay, not evidence.
It's also childishly stupidly wrong.
-
This is an other reason I don't respond to you.
Because I point out that you are wrong?
-
The preferred method of science is to do experiments, which can then be reproduced by others, in the same (or slightly different) conditions, to produce a confirmed, published and reproducible result.
However, when it comes to an event in history (like the death and claimed resurrection of Jesus), this preferred method falls down. We can't just run experiments, rerunning history with variations - that is outside our control.
Some areas of science are like that - Astronomy and Geology, for example. We can't rerun the history of the Earth, or create stars of our own*.
So, when it comes to non-reproduce-able events, scientists adopt a modified method - they try to collect as much evidence as they can, from different sources, and attempt to build a credible picture. Other scientists will collect slightly different aspects of the data. But the goal is to produce a consensus view among experts in the field, applying the techniques of evidence and analysis. The consensus is often formed in the heat of fiery debate.
Historical events fall into this area where we must apply a modified scientific method, to look at events that appeared in the past.
While scientists have, at times resorted to insults to win debates, we don't permit that here.
- Requiring evidence is not an insult
- Setting a high bar for the evidence is expected
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- Some of the evidence quoted above is based on analysis of ancient texts, which can be rather opaque to those who don't read those languages.
- While a coin minted during the reign of Nero is understandable by everyone
Overall, keep down the snide comments, and try to address the requests for evidence.
*At least, in Astronomy, we can look into space, and see stars of different ages, and piece together their life history from looking at many different stars.
- In Geology, we are (so far) very restricted in the number of other worlds we can look at to compare with Earth
If you review thoroughly the attacks others have leveled against me, you will get a clear picture why I have pointed out the problem.
I agree with much of what you said. However, the resurrection of Christ is reproducible today. It has been observed throughout history and up to and including the present. Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by. They not only claim an extra ordinary rebirth, but his impact lasts for their lifetimes and the changes they describe are evident to others. We are not talking about a few people who had questionable experiences. Hundreds of millions of people, most of them unknown to the others, from every walk of life, rich and poor, of every color, nationality, young and old, educated and not educated, male and female, proclaim he is indeed risen and that he lives, literally, he lives inside them, just as he promised he would. People who know nothing of the N.T. or about the experiences of others, say the same things. They don't know what to expect and may never see the person who shared the message, or read the book or tract again, insist they met him and were transformed by him. Bart Ehrman had the same experience I had and I knew zero about Jesus. Zero. How do we explain all of this?
Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words/phrases like he did. Nothing is there. He was from a different universe and sounded like it in his teaching and conversations with others. He wept, too. He was total God and total man, even though someone commented the other day that screaming out asking God why he had forsaken him, proved he failed as God's son and ergo he couldn't be his son.
In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.
-
For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain ...
Thanks for the meaningless clarification.
Did you quote that scholar because you thought he was lying?
That would be odd, because you have subsequently said you believe it.
If I say " Einstein said E=MC^2", i am tacitly making that statement.
I am certainly making a statement to that effect (I chose my words carefully)
Do you not understand that "nothing is more certain" is equivalent to nothing is better proved?
quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
And , in my original reply to that I pointed out the problems
Firstly
" a world renown scholar,"Is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
Secondly, what the apostles believed isn't the issue here- they might have been mistaken (they might have believed what they wanted to believe).
Thirdly, and most importantly, the assertion you reported is obviously untrue.
"Nothing in history is more certain than that ..."
Plenty of things in history are more certain than that- for example, the fact that Nero was emperor of Rome.
(In fact, his statement is more general and more absurd. Is it really more certain than that, for example, "Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1953"?)
And yet you say you believe it...
-
However, the resurrection of Christ is reproducible today.
Good.
Just show us that happening then.
-
Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.
Yes we can.
Not least because there's an even bigger mass of humanity who do not believe it.
The "a million lemmings can't be wrong" never was valid.
-
This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented.
There are precedents recorded long before Christ.
-
Hundreds of millions of people, most of them unknown to the others, from every walk of life, rich and poor, of every color, nationality, young and old, educated and not educated,
No.
They were all educated in the sense of "having been taught".
In particular, they were generally taught by people with a vested interest in convincing them.
-
he lives inside them, just as he promised he would.
In some, but for the rest of us, that promise is broken.
-
Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words like he did.
We already wrote off that nonsense.
He didn't speak English.
The poetry of, for example, the KJB comes from the work of the translators.
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
This is an other reason I don't respond to you.
Because I point out that you are wrong?
thank you for this, bc. you have provided a perfect example why I refuse to respond to you. I just pointed out a couple more errors you've made and you replied in your classic style.
again, please stop harassing me.
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
I just pointed out a couple more errors you've made
Where?
-
please stop harassing me.
Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.
-
Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words like he did.
We already wrote off that nonsense.
He didn't speak English.
The poetry of, for example, the KJB comes from the work of the translators.
thank you one more time. I couldn't have found a more perfect example of the way you conduct yourself--around me at least.
i always thought his English was quite good. his Russian, not so much, Japanese definitely needs divine intervention
-
I couldn't have found a more perfect example of the way you conduct yourself
Yes, cruel man that I am, I tell the truth.
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
You also forgot to answer this.
I just pointed out a couple more errors you've made
Where?
-
Have you turned back into a pumpkin?
It's gone midnight and you seem to have gone quiet.
Or do you not want to carry on lying on a Sunday?
-
The rule says:
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.
I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
I want to thank you again, Kryptid. THANK YOU! How refreshing to read your reply. It means a lot to me. What you said makes perfect sense to me. i understand it and respect it. And, I appreciate you pointing out that you are new and don't presume to have all the answers. Keep your current attitude. I am certain you are going to do a very fine job.
-
Jeffreyh the Delight
"You want everyone else to believe in something you were told was true. Without any evidence. Because the grown ups that taught you that were the ones you thought you could trust implicitly.
That isn't going to happen. So, no matter how hard you try and however long you try, to beat them down with my your evangelising, some will just ignore you. Others will just laugh.
That is the way of the world. You may find some kindred souls but you share an affinity with the foil hat brigade. Just as misguided and just as dangerous to those with any sanity left.
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates."
Another wonderful example of the love flowing from my adoring public. The respectful tone is what stands out. Mind you, Jeff just pops in and out from nowhere whenever the spirit strikes, directing his edifying comments at me out of the blue. I have no idea who he is, what he wants, what he's doing here, but he's always eager to unleash his kind, insightful thoughts at me free of charge.
I was never told by a parent to believe anything except that religion is the most evil influence ever--in the entire world, in all recorded history.
-
Quote from: jeffreyH on 04/04/2020 12:57:40
"Why can't god force someone to love it? Is it unaware of psychology, manipulation or hypnotism? Didn't it create those things? You seem to be able to attach anything to this god. It's almost as if it is a convenient mouthpiece for your own opinions. No matter how horrendous they are. Am I correct?"
You are always correct big boy. I didn't realize how much you care, you big sweetie.
He failed sophomore geometry. Gd has to work on his concentration lapses. Good point jeffreyh.
-
Bruce Metzger, “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.
Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.
Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.
What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.
I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.
In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.
We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.
By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.
Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.
please stop harassing me.
Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.
-
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question.
The thing he really needs to do is stop making false statements.
-
Bruce Metzger, “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.
Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.
Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.
What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.
I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.
In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.
We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.
By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.
Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.
please stop harassing me.
Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.
No, he doesn't take their belief as proof of anything. He recognizes the profound changes in their lives as a result of encountering a risen savior.
-
Many attack me, my opinions, in aggressively hostile ways including you, colin. Nothing's been done. Not a word. Explain that if you'd like to.
-
the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.
More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
-
No one appreciates how strong my beliefs are. They can't stand my beliefs. Just look at the non-stop hostility. Come on. Don't call it appreciation. It is just the opposite. I have wanted to show how there are scientifically valid reasons for what I believe. What I believe doesn't amount to a warm glass of spit w/o evidence.
The testimony of millions of people has scientific value. It is not proof. It is verifiable evidence because it is repeatable. I don't say that based on what they say they believe alone. It has evidentiary value because of the profound changes that are universally experienced and borne out in the lives of these people. Just like there are measurable brain changes in the newly-fallen-in-love, born from above Christians show the same increases in neurotransmitters. Not proof, but evidentiary evidence that something real has happened in their lives. I pointed these things out. They are dismissed with comments like if Christ was real, everyone would have those kinds of things happen to them. Not at all. People prayed to receive him. People took/take active steps to encounter him. He doesn't force himself on anyone. Hundreds of millions of people asked him, sought him, knocked and kept on pursuing a relationship with him and they found him. Yet, if I try to make that understood, I'm suddenly preaching and evangelizing and having comments removed. So, I tried to present my dilemma to the wider body of participants. And, I'm told I'm on thin ice. I'm told I'm inferior, too limited intellectually to make sound decisions, to engage in intelligent conversation and I don't respond to others and I don't provide evidence. I am bombarded with nasty accusations and silly, infantile objections to the evidence I am allowed to squeak in among the insults. I purposely ignore some of the ridiculous feedback because it is being used as bait. Look at the comments. Just read what bc, alan, jeffreyh, polygasoline and you and others have said and still are saying. I'm not a pig. I'm not mentally defective-- unless you ask my wife. The nastiness, the childishness, they are against the rules and that is a problem for N.S.
Is Bart Ehrman's testimony worthless because he believed something. Of course not. He experienced real changes and others could see those changes and he was amazed by those changes and milions upon millions have experienced the same changes and others have seen those changes. His falling away is his choice. That doesn't discredit the relationship he once enjoyed with his "best friend" his "hero" who filled him with "love".
-
One way to address proof of God
After this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God. All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this....
Still looking for evidence.
I agree. I was helping to establish the experimental protocol so other scientists could run their own verifying experiments. If you wanted to photograph a rare species of animal, to prove it exists, you need to set up your photographic tools in the appropriate habitat. You cannot expect that rare animal to call you on the phone and meet you in a lab. Atheist do not appear to know enough about the God phenomena. They run the wrong experimental protocol and then blame God for not calling on the phone.
Like with rare animals, you will need to go to where the phenomena lives. so you can maximize the chance your paths will cross. I tried to establish logic and the protocol that says that the proper habitat for any valid God experiments, will need to be within the speed of light reference in which it dwells. I was a development engineer. I was good at knowing how to run the right experiments and avoid experimental conditions that will fail. This is the key to innovation.
The speed of light reference appears to be misunderstood. Energy moves at the speed of light, but basic observations tell us that photons are not exclusively in the speed of light reference. This can be inferred from the observation that photons can express both variable and finite frequency and wavelength. Finite and distinct expressions are connected to inertial.
In other words if you use the time and distance equations of SR, and plug in c, all increments of time and distance; frequency and wavelength, should become infinite and discontinuous. The Lorenz transform becomes discontinuous no matter what length/wavelength or time/frequency you use. All photons should become homogeneous and discontinuous at c. Yet, protons, while moving at c, show distinct and finite quanta in space and time. not predicted by the Lornez transform. This tells me that photons are part inertial, and not exclusively in the speed of light reference. Energy does not meet the full protocol.
Light or photons have two legs, one in inertial reference and the other in the speed of light reference. They act as a bridge between the two realms; matter=inertial and c=spiritual. The symbolism of Jesus would be more appropriate for energy' spirit becoming flesh. The experimental protocol needed for God sightings, requires a pure c reference. It is not energy based, except at infinite wavelength and zero frequent. Infinite wavelength is as close as our inertial based tools will be able to get. We may need to invent a way to extend our sight beyond this.
We will need to take up our position, at the fence between the end of initial, and the pure c-reference, waiting for a possible God sighting. Since the c-reference is discontinuous in terms of space-time and mass, the impact of a sighting, on our inertial tools, will be indirect. We will not photograph a finite image from a reference that is discontinuous.
At the speed of light reference, since time and distance are discontinuous, entropy will be maximized, since all states are possible, since no state is restricted by finite time, space or mass. The impact of infinite entropy on our tools will be the experimental impact of God. Something strange will happen, but this may be different for each experiment, to reflect the discontinuous nature of the c-reference.
A determinate and repeatable result would be connected to inertial and energy affects, inertial affects from bridge realms. We may pick up signals from other places in the universe due to the space and time discontinuity.
-
More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.
Look at their transformations. How do you explain them?
-
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
Hundreds of millions disagree.
-
Just look at the non-stop hostility.
My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
Hundreds of millions disagree.
If it isn't evidence, what is it?
-
What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God.
How many threads have I started?
Jesus is GOD.
And you still don't acknowledge your own aggressive hostility you and others have used.
-
And you still don't acknowledge your own aggressive hostility you and others have used.
Lying to people and about people tends to make them hostile.
You don't acknowledge your dishonesty.
Why not?
-
Jesus is GOD.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
Hundreds of millions disagree.
If it isn't evidence, what is it?
for at least the third time
HEARSAY
-
the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.
More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
Can science prove God exists?
« Reply #841 on: 02/04/2020 01:09:52 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/04/2020 23:31:02
in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere he clearly stated that he was the Son of Man."
Clearly? What else did he say?
-
the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.
More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
He was not from this world. He said so
"There is no evidence for that statement. Indeed in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere he clearly stated that he was the Son of Man. So you either accept the word of Jesus Christ, or the bullshit put about by those who have cobbled together a spurious religion around his name. I always prefer the former, which, like most of what he said, is consistent with everyday observation and common sense."
What did he mean?
He didn't claim to be God, but he did state that he was the son of man. ?
Accept the word of Christ? Or the B.S.? I pointed out that you can't distinguish. You pick and choose what fits your beliefs. He said He was God almighty, too. In the same documents you cite in which He called Himself the Son of Man, He said He was GOD.
-
the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.
"More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant." big al
Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.
"More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead. Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant." big al
Well, let's think about that. Did they believe He rose from the dead? You've been shown before what they did with their lives after they said that, haven't you? What did they do? Proof's in the puddin.
-
If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution? They could have renounced their belief. Seeing him brutally murdered they would have been terrified that they too would face horrors if they went around claiming he was alive, wouldn't they? Because, in fact, that is what happened to them.
-
If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?
Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?
Just look at the non-stop hostility.
My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration. My questions stem from the vaguery as the rules stand now.
The following are rules are in place to make this forum a more comfortable place for all its users. We would urge all users of the forum to read the rules below, and abide by them.
1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.
A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.
Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted? Many varied "religious" theories are promoted by different participants. When are they evangelizing a pet theory or just discussing it?
Many comments are deliberate, untrue and aggressively insulting of spiritual matters and those who make them. The rule governing all of our statements forbids this type of language, yet some continue doing so flaunting their defiance.
How are we to know, specifically, if/when we are violating this particular rule, "evangelizing a pet theory" on N.S.?
If someone makes untrue, insulting accusations against spiritual opinions, persons, principles or their historic background, is everyone forbidden from responding, trying to make corrections?
If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so? What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail?
Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?
"By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently." colin
IOW, you are an idiot, but I shouldn't have called you an idiot. If I had it to do over again, I'd call you a moron" Colin
Thank you so much.
BTW, I posted again your statement that I deliberately mislead people, for your viewing pleasure. You are absolutely right. You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people. My error.
The N.T., nature, the testimonies and changed lives of the original gang and millions and millions since then are evidence that God is. I have just begun to break these major categories down to their myriad smaller components. Evidence for God is everywhere (I'm preaching I guess--even as I'm attempting to present evidence.)
-
More Evidence: "it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible." b nelson
-
More Evidence: "it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible." b nelson
So, still on that learning curve then?
Not yet worked out that hearsay isn't evidence, have you?
Do you have any idea how long it will take you to learn?
-
You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.
If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?
Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?
Just look at the non-stop hostility.
My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
"Quote from: Colin2B on 07/05/2020 06:35:28
Quote from: duffyd on 07/05/2020 00:51:41
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"
Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 14:50:23
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 14:38:20
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:09:47
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:15:04
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?"
Aggressive hostility is forbidden? Now wait a minute. Did someone just cite the N.T. to accuse someone of being a triple liar? Now they believe in the accuracy of the N.T.!
Can't believe it. WE HAVE CONVERTS!
Golly. I never realized if someone said something, it is the truth. "Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists." Well now. I apologize. Colin said it. It is Gospel. (no pun intended.) Forgive me. He is right afterall. I am too stuopid.
-
"Quote from: Colin2B on 07/05/2020 06:35:28
Quote from: duffyd on 07/05/2020 00:51:41
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"
Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 14:50:23
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 14:38:20
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:09:47
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:15:04
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?"
Aggressive hostility is forbidden? Now wait a minute. Did someone just cite the N.T. to accuse someone of being a triple liar? Now they believe in the accuracy of the N.T.!
Can't believe it. WE HAVE CONVERTS!
Golly. I never realized if someone said something, it is the truth. "Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists." Well now. I apologize. Colin said it. It is Gospel. (no pun intended.) Forgive me. He is right afterall. I am too stuopid.
Because I know you tell lies, I suspect that you made that deliberately unclear so you could tell some more.
Is there some other reason for not using the quote function properly?
-
You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.
If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?
Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?
Just look at the non-stop hostility.
My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
Bruce Metzger, “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”
This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.
Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.
Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.
What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.
I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.
In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.
We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.
By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.
Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.
please stop harassing me.
Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.
Colin, did I read that right? I can end this by answering the question? What do you mean by "this"? The harassment that began months ago, that has not let up? the nasty allegations? the nasty statements? the nasty accusations, the unfair treatment? calling me a retard and standing by it? not saying a word to anyone else about what they were doing in violation of the rules? Accusing me of starting many threads? Accusing me of not providing any evidence and never responding? of using sleight of hand? accusing me of not using a link you offered someone else out of fear I'd be corrected? of being illogical? of being a triple liar? by not accepting your comment as truth? by being a pig? Have I been accused of murder, yet? Well, give it time.
I think the rules advise that we should try to tone down the nastiness in our comments, don't they? Oooops. I am likely lying again if I didn't describe that rule perfectly!
-
Do you really not understand that it you turn up on a site and tell lies you will get grief for it?
Do you really not understand that it you make contentious statements and then refuse to back then up you will get grief for it?
Do you really not understand that if you keeps calling things evidence or proof when they are hearsay or logical fallacies, you will get grief.
-
You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.
If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?
Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?
Just look at the non-stop hostility.
My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
OK, show everybody where I said that.
-
calling me a retard and standing by it?
What word do you use for someone who thinks that it's more likely that the Queen wasn't crowned than that the Apostles disbelieved that Jesus was resurrected?
What word do you use for someone who, even after it is explained, doesn't understand that the point isn't what they believed, because they may have been mistaken?
What word do you use for someone who can't understand that even if you had proof of Jesus, you would not have scientific proof of God?
-
Colin, do you know what a figure of speech is? Do you know what personification is? Hyperbole? Apply them to my comment that science says there is no God. You see, science can't talk. I was personifying science, making it or attaching to it human characteristics. ........ When I made science say it doesn't believe in God, I didn't mean literally that science became a human being. ......keep in mind those commonly used literary tools.
Yes, I am fully aware of these literary tools, I do keep them in mind, and I never believed that you were suggesting science had become a human being. However, the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct. As far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted scientific theory or published theory in any reputable journal or textbook which claims that god (any god) does not exist. So, to use personification, you are misquoting science and no matter how you phrase it, or interpret it, that is bad witness.
-
Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words like he did.
"We already wrote off that nonsense.
He didn't speak English.
The poetry of, for example, the KJB comes from the work of the translators."
"We" dismissed that, did we? I am losing it. I have no recollection of dismissing it. I must be lying. I've got to knock that off! Darn.
IOW, the translators made up out of whole cloth:
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
17These things I command you, that ye love one another.
18If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
22If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
23He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." KJV
Dag man. I always thought Christ spoke those words originally, in another language, which were interpreted and translated holding to the transcripts word for word as closely as possible.
He really said, "Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow..." Learn something new every day.
-
Colin, do you know what a figure of speech is? Do you know what personification is? Hyperbole? Apply them to my comment that science says there is no God. You see, science can't talk. I was personifying science, making it or attaching to it human characteristics. ........ When I made science say it doesn't believe in God, I didn't mean literally that science became a human being. ......keep in mind those commonly used literary tools.
Yes, I am fully aware of these literary tools, I do keep them in mind, and I never believed that you were suggesting science had become a human being. However, the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct. As far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted scientific theory or published theory in any reputable journal or textbook which claims that god (any god) does not exist. So, to use personification, you are misquoting science and no matter how you phrase it, or interpret it, that is bad witness.
No. I didn't misquote or mislead anyone in any manner especially given the use of literary tools. I do not need to be absolved. It is a given among the educated public that the very use of these tools is a means of relaxing the standards in casual conversation. No implication of deceit or subtle misleading of an kind was intended or implied or could be construed due to the very nature of the phrasing of the sentences. It is rather obvious that no one was quoted. There is no one named science of whom I'm aware that has anything to say about science. Never asked science for a quote. I did/do rely upon my knowledge of the world in general and I know something about the scientific community.
Leading scientists still reject God
Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the 19th century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.
Nature
-
"the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct."
My statement was correct as it was intended to suggest that often science and "religion" don't mix, and I stand by it. I make comments. I am not an expert giving testimony at a capital offense trial. I am not trying to be perfect. I think making perfectly "factually correct" statements in this case isn't necessary. I think most of us understood what I said should not be taken as a scientifically established, perfectly honed, precise calculation of inerrant, documented, peer reviewed, double-blind and controlled proof.
I don't believe anyone was in danger of committing heresy from my comment. Do you?
-
I always prefer the former, which, like most of what he said, is consistent with everyday observation and common sense."
Check that out. Most of what he said was bizarre, nearly impossible to understand, totally unique, totally unlike anything anyone ever said in all of recorded history.
-
"We" dismissed that, did we?
Grow up.
I didn't say we all agreed it.
My intent was that it would be understood as "we- those who value logic over dogma-dismissed it".
But it doesn't really matter.
Once it's been dismissed- and it has- there's no need to consider it further.
IOW, the translators made up out of whole cloth:
No.
The translators took the Latin text and translated it , understandably, into the most imposing English they could.
The language you or I read in the Bible is the words of the translators as much as that of Jesus (to the extent that any of it's actually Jesus).
I always thought Christ spoke those words originally, in another language, which were interpreted and translated holding to the transcripts word for word as closely as possible.
Then you are a bigger fool than I took you for.
-
Jesus is GOD.
There are 3 main Abrahamic religions, Judism, Christianity and Islam. Of the 3 only 1 claims Jesus is God, the others say he is not. Of the 3 different hypotheses, how will we decide which one represents the truth, or whether any of them represents the truth.
All the adherents to these religions claim that they have asked God to speak to them, and they believe he does; they believe he answers their prayer and they feel the same love and commitment to their beliefs as you do. They believe that their faith has a major impact on their lives. They all speak of the profound changes that are universally experienced and borne out in their lives. They display the same measurable brain changes as in the newly-fallen-in-love, showing the same increases in neurotransmitters. Not proof, but showing that something real has happened in their lives.
I have wanted to show how there are scientifically valid reasons for what I believe. What I believe doesn't amount to a warm glass of spit w/o evidence.
I do not understand this statement. Faith does not require evidence, in fact the bible teaches against it “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.”
I am not an expert giving testimony at a capital offense trial. I am not trying to be perfect. I think making perfectly "factually correct" statements in this case isn't necessary.
I don't believe anyone was in danger of committing heresy from my comment. Do you?
you cannot be serious!
This is not a question of heresy. You started this topic to discuss whether "Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists", now you tell us that we cannot rely on the accuracy of your statements. So is there any truth in the statements you have been posting here as evidence?
To the average reader who would take your post at face value, it is factually incorrect and misleading. Now you tell us you wrote it intentionally.
It is clear that you have no intention of entering into serious discussion on this topic
While I’ve been replying, this has been pointed out to me
"By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently." colin
IOW, you are an idiot, but I shouldn't have called you an idiot. If I had it to do over again, I'd call you a moron" Colin
You have put both these quotes in the same format and a reader would rightly assume that both are quotes of something I have said. However, only I am able to recognise that I have not said the second one.
This is deceitful and it would appear you have done the same to @bored and he has challenged you on this.
You have previously been put on notice not to evangelise/preach, yet in a recent post you say “Dag, am I preaching?” so you obviously recognise that you are.
Given that it is clear that you have no intention of entering into serious discussion on this topic and that your true intention appears to be to evangelise, we are locking this thread while we review your posting rights.