Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 511 (771941)
11-01-2015 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
11-01-2015 7:43 AM


The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said. All the accounts that present themselves as historical accounts are historical accounts. Not interested in taking any "outs," it's your suppositions that need the correction, not mine,.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 11-01-2015 7:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 11-02-2015 7:46 AM Faith has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 182 of 511 (771942)
11-01-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by PaulK
10-31-2015 12:42 PM


PaulK writes:
Of course it is far from clear that there ever was such a tomb. The earliest report we have is more than twenty years after the event, and tells us that the witnesses did not pass in the story - at least at that time. The story itself is somewhat unlikely, and really, a missing body is very poor evidence of a resurrection anyway.
The empty tomb story is not important evidence.
Instead of pointing to the empty tomb, the apostle Paul pointed to the sightings of the risen Jesus as evidence of His resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8). Paul wrote this about 20 years after the events. But most scholars (including skeptics such as Bart Ehrman) think that verses 3-5 reflect an early creed which dates back to within just a few years of the events. As I recall, Ehrman dates this creed to within 5 years of the events; other scholars such as Gary Habermas would push it back to within 2 years or less.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2015 12:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2015 11:09 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 183 of 511 (771945)
11-01-2015 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by kbertsche
11-01-2015 10:38 AM


Exactly my point. The Empty Tomb story was not even mentioned in the texts we have from the first twenty years. A report of a missing body so long after the fact can hardly be considered great evidence of a resurrection. Surely it is more important that the man was seen alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 10:38 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 184 of 511 (771948)
11-01-2015 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
11-01-2015 3:20 AM


Do you agree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life?
Because up until now you seem to have been saying that the writing style in question is indeed evidence in and of itself. Now you tell me that isn't what you are saying. Which is it?
If someone today wrote a recent account of a dead person coming back to life and they wrote that in a similar/identical style - would you believe that too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 3:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 185 of 511 (771951)
11-01-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Straggler
11-01-2015 11:23 AM


You are misusing the word "style," I included the straightforward style of narrative among other characteristics of the writers of the Bible such as the lack of whitewashing in their accounts, such as the inclusion of incidental facts and so on, that all go to their credibility as reporters. It's their credibility that is the basis for taking their reports about the resurrection seriously, reports that include the disciples' discovery that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb, and their personal encounters with Him after He'd risen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2015 11:23 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2015 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 186 of 511 (771962)
11-01-2015 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
11-01-2015 11:28 AM


The inclusion of incidental components in the narrative and what you describe as straightforwardness are all aspects of writing style.
I ask again - Do you agree or disagree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life?
Everything you say suggests you do think writing style is an entirely valid reason to draw such a conclusion. But when asked specifically you say that is not what you mean. But "straightforward style of narrative" and "inclusion of incidental facts" are aspects of writing style.
So your actual position on this comes across as desperately confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 187 of 511 (771963)
11-01-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Phat
11-01-2015 1:26 AM


Re: Depends which words you use
Phat writes:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The wording is unfortunate. Hebrews 11:1 is not using the word "evidence" the way we use it. A better translation would be, "Faith is a substitute for evidence when you don't have any evidence."
Edited by ringo, : Added a word for clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Phat, posted 11-01-2015 1:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 188 of 511 (771964)
11-01-2015 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
10-31-2015 1:47 PM


Faith writes:
*Groan*
So, did C.S. Lewis take the talking snake literally or not? If you're going to cite him as an authority, you should at least know whether or not he agrees with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 10-31-2015 1:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 189 of 511 (771984)
11-02-2015 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
11-01-2015 10:24 AM


Faith writes:
The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said.
You don't even know who many of the writers were, let alone their credibility.
All the accounts that present themselves as historical accounts are historical accounts.
But they don't all "present themselves as historical accounts," and stylistic approach is not an indicator of credibility.
Not interested in taking any "outs," it's your suppositions that need the correction, not mine.
Correct away. You can begin with my supposition that the story of the talking snake is not true.
Seriously, if you'd like to turn this thread into an evidence based discussion as if the thread were actually in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, then I not only think moderation is a good idea, I would love to moderate. I'll recuse myself for a couple days so that the discussion will have moved on from anything I was discussing, then begin moderating on Wednesday. See you then!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 11-02-2015 8:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 511 (771985)
11-02-2015 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Percy
11-02-2015 7:46 AM


Faith writes:
The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said.
You don't even know who many of the writers were, let alone their credibility.
Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion, which is all about how their credibility is established by their writing itself, their presentation of incidental facts as in any straightforward credible historical report (time of day, who all was present, that sort of thing), their inclusion of negative information about some of the participants, such as the men's lack of trust of the reports of the women who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. The point is that the Biblical accounts demonstrate their historical credibility in the way they are written. And I quoted C. S. Lewis somewhere, who was a professor of literature of the mythical type, who said the Biblical reports are nothing like myth. This observation was one of the things that made a believer out of him in spite of himself (as he said he came kicking and screaming into the Kingdom or something like that as I recall). Again, the credibility 9of the writers is in their writing. As for knowing them, one gets to know them from their writing and from what others wrote about them. Not rocket science. And this is NOT about "style" in that irrelevant modern sense that ringo used the word either. I've already answered all this, and all you will do by continuing it is require me to repeat myself.
I'm not interested in making this thread into anything in particular, but believers have evidence for our belief and that's all I wanted to say.
Correct away. You can begin with my supposition that the story of the talking snake is not true.
Already you require me to repeat myself. Why is there any problem about a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, or a talking donkey during the Exodus, when the God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? The serpent is understood to be how Satan presented himself to Adam and Eve, not as a natural phenomenon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 11-02-2015 7:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2015 3:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 191 of 511 (771996)
11-02-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
11-02-2015 8:13 AM


There you go again
Faith writes:
....their credibility is established by their writing itself...
Is writing style a sensible basis on which to draw the conclusion that a dead man came back to life?
You obviously think it is. So why not just say so? I suspect because when put explicitly even you think it sounds slightly ridiculous to do so.
But that is what your argument boils down to....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 11-02-2015 8:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 192 of 511 (772002)
11-02-2015 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Omnivorous
10-29-2015 7:27 PM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Omnivorous
Omnivorous writes:
ICANT writes:
So why does the universe exist rather than nothing?
I don't know. Neither do you.
I know the universe exists.
I know the standard Big Bang Theory requires the universe to have a beginning to exist.
I understand there is a law that energy and mass can not be created.
That means what ever provided the energy and mass that makes us the universe we see today would have to be a supernatural entity.
Omnivorous writes:
Could you define this state of affairs that you call "nothing"? What makes you think it could exist?
I prefer to use an absence of anything, or non existence, but nothing is the same.
The Big Bang Theory is supposed to have started nano seconds after T=0, the point the theory breaks down and can not tell us what was in existence.
We are required to believe that all the energy and mass in the universe existed on top of itself, in a place that the theory can not tell us even exists. Some have said it was the size of a pin point.
But if there was an absence of anything (nothing) there would be no energy there, mass, space, time, or vaccum. Thus there would be non existence.
Since we only know existence it is very hard for most people to understand non existence.
Omnivorous writes:
You've latched onto your own intuitive understanding of physicists attempting to explain complex mathematical/theoretical models in plain language, always an inadequate approximation, and used your human sensory experience of space and time to make arguments about theology. This led you to declare that Hawking's work supports your theology when it doesn't, as he has made clear.
I try to keep my imagination completely out of the equation.
In Message 46 I said:
quote:
Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.
Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist.
Scientific fact: The universe exists.
I don't think you have a problem with the third statement.
You want to argue about the first statement but you have not stated whether the universe is eternal or not.
You seem to not to want to believe the universe had a beginning to exist.
Could you tell me which you believe and support your reasoning with evidence.
Now as far as me misunderstanding what Stephen Hawking's said. Here is the quote I used from his lecture of 1996 where he said:
quote:
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Here is another quote from the same lecture.
quote:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.
In this lecture he also proposes imaginary time, so the universe would have a place to begin to exist the only problem with that is he put it inside of the universe.
I bolded Stephen Hawking's statement about the universe having not existed forever. I also bolded where he said it had a beginning.
I understand Stephen Hawking to say two things in those quotes.
1. The universe has not always existed.
2. The universe had a beginning.
Which of those two statements have I misunderstood?
Omnivorous writes:
But the BB doesn't give you scientific grounds for that, and your theo-logic is based only on a feeling.
The standard BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.
Since we are on equal footing as to what caused the universe to begin to exist my hypothesis is just as viable as any you may present. They all require assumption after assumption to present anything.
But if we remember the law that says energy and mass can not be created.
We would be compelled to conclude that a supernatural (something that is not natural) entity existed to supply the energy and mass that formed into the universe as we know it today. Or we would not be here and the universe would not exist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 7:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2015 1:06 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-03-2015 9:45 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 193 of 511 (772005)
11-03-2015 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2015 10:32 PM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Cat,
Why can't there be non existence?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2015 10:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-03-2015 9:35 AM ICANT has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 194 of 511 (772007)
11-03-2015 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by ICANT
11-02-2015 8:05 PM


Re: ICANT,
This law you speak of - "energy and mass cannot be created" - In your mind where does that law derive from? Was that law in place prior to the Big Bang or was that law itself created as part of the creation of our universe in your God scenario?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2015 8:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2015 2:18 AM Straggler has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 195 of 511 (772008)
11-03-2015 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
10-30-2015 3:55 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question.
Why?
If you have followed my posts in this thread you know I believe a supernatural power existed prior to T=0.
I believe the law that states energy and mass can not be created requires a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass that makes up our present universe.
There is no other alternative for a source for the energy and mass that make up our universe.
Hartley/Hawking proposed an instanton that if it existed would create a universe just like ours. That particle has never been found, and there would have been no vacuum for it to exist in.
Cavediver puts it this way.
Message 311
quote:
All I am saying is that at a particular early time, space is the size of a pea. At that time there is no extra empty space - it is not that everything has been squashed into one small pea-sized corner of the Universe. Space itself is the size of a pea. So anything in space must be confined to that size.
Son Goku puts it this way. Message 75
quote:
The existence of the Big Bang is a different issue, one completely supported by physical evidence. We now know, to a high confidence interval, that the universe was super hot and very small 13.7 billion years ago. Before this point we are encapable of tracking what went on, due to the appearance of exotic new physical effects we do not understand. A singularity is the mathematical warning sign that this exotic physics has appeared.
In another place Son Goku said: Message 275
quote:
ICANT writes:
At T=0+ expansion began which created space, time, gravity and everything that it took to create all the things that we see in the universe and the things we can not see.
This is wrong. Nothing is known about T=0 or the short period after it. The earliest thing we know is that the universe was expanding and was hot and dense.
The reason we know nothing about T=0 is that it is proven that General Relativity has a singularity there and is unreliable.
So from a place that the math does not work the universe expanded into what it is today without any source of energy and mass for it to form from. I am supposed to accept this explanation for the Universe existing.
I don't think so. I will stick with a supernatural power that supplied that energy and mass that was required.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2015 3:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2015 2:03 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024