Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9084 total)
121 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 119 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,475 Year: 8,587/6,534 Month: 68/1,588 Week: 19/406 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7570
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 586 of 815 (898296)
09-21-2022 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by GDR
09-21-2022 4:18 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
You have no evidence who wrote the gospels. None. You can spout bullshit, but I will call you on it. That you refuse to respond to me shows you have.nothing.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 4:18 PM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7046
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 587 of 815 (898302)
09-22-2022 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by GDR
09-21-2022 8:40 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
A measurement can only take place as a result of a conscious thought and action.
Not so. An observation can be as simple as a puff of air. Whether a consciousness is there to interpret the measurement or not that outcome is the same. Such collisions cause decoherence of the entangled particles. That is an outcome whether consciously measured or not. Observation is not limited to minds and meters.
Observations show the outcome of the measurement. They do not create the outcome.
If you've read Carroll then realize that, unlike Copenhagen, the wave function collapse (observing the state of a system) is not limited but the wave function must include the observer and the measurement apparatus.
In this an observation is not dependant on the included observer but on the state of the whole system's wave function.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 8:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 2:39 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17255
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 588 of 815 (898303)
09-22-2022 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by GDR
09-21-2022 9:26 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
OK. What is the process that kicked off all of the processes necessary for all the different branches of the evolutionary processes?
That would be abiogenesis (complicated by the problems of defining life, but still).
quote:
What was the process that produced a process for consciousness, sentience etc?
This is just too vague to answer. Or it’s just abiogenesis again.
quote:
What was the process that created the first cell and what was the process that caused a single cell to multiply
Are you assuming that the first life was cellular? If so, it’s abiogenesis again. If not, the first is evolution and the second doesn’t exist.
quote:
What was the process that caused compounds to form and so on and so on. I guess using the term infinite is too strong, however you can go right back to the BB and then into a vast unknown.
What you really mean is hat you can go on demanding “processes” to explain everything but we aren’t allowed to do the same to you. Our thinking does not imply an infinite regress where yours clearly does.
quote:
It seems simpler to me to have a cosmic intelligence who always existed outside of our world with it's one dimension of time being responsible.
Sure, you find caring about the truth too much work.
quote:
This is another example of you avoiding the question. We both know that this is about belief. Neither view can be proven scientifically or in any other manner.
And there you go again evading my point and trying to pass off unfalsifiability as a virtue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 9:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17255
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 589 of 815 (898304)
09-22-2022 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by GDR
09-21-2022 9:05 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
Actually, from an Occam's Razor POV, Matthean priority is simpler as it negates inventing "Q", for which there is zero evidence. In effect, Matthew then takes the place of Q.
This is another falsehood, and an obvious one. Q has nothing to do with the relationship between Mark and Matthew. Matthean priority does not negate Q (it’s widely accepted that Matthew predates Luke anyway), nor does Markan priority require Q (see Farrer Hypothesis)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 9:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 12:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5646
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 590 of 815 (898305)
09-22-2022 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by AZPaul3
09-22-2022 1:45 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
AZPaul3 writes:
Not so. An observation can be as simple as a puff of air. Whether a consciousness is there to interpret the measurement or not that outcome is the same. Such collisions cause decoherence of the entangled particles. That is an outcome whether consciously measured or not. Observation is not limited to minds and meters.
First off let me acknowledge that I am way out of my depth here.
However, are you saying that a puff of wind can cause a wave function to collapse into a particle?
PaulK writes:
Observations show the outcome of the measurement. They do not create the outcome.

If you've read Carroll then realize that, unlike Copenhagen, the wave function collapse (observing the state of a system) is not limited but the wave function must include the observer and the measurement apparatus.

In this an observation is not dependant on the included observer but on the state of the whole system's wave function.
This is from this site: Double Slit Experiment
quote:
Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made.
It seems that either it requires a conscious observer or with a measurement done by an apparatus constructed by a conscious being and then observed.
We are far off the original top with this but I guess it doesn't matter as virtually none of the posts in this thread have been on topic.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 1:45 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 7:23 AM GDR has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7046
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 591 of 815 (898306)
09-22-2022 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by GDR
09-22-2022 2:39 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
However, are you saying that a puff of wind can cause a wave function to collapse into a particle?
Yes. Though it gets complex.
We are defining a quantum system. Until there is an observation the best we can say is the particles properties are undefined. The Universe (that unintelligent personified glory that is all) does not know the properties of the particles because their probability wave is still unresolved.
As soon as a puff of air (atoms in a stream) enter the picture those atoms collide with, thus revealing to the Universe (decoheres), the properties of all the particles, both original air and target particles, and serves as the apparatus of the measurement resolving the probability wave. No consciousness necessary.
The wave function will collapse into the revealed attributes of their individual particles quantum states (Copenhagen)
or,
The wave function of the system is updated to include the new quantum information, particles positions, momentum, etc, and those particles are not seen in superpositions of states. Wave functions do not collapse, the story goes. The probabilities of future observations are altered, updated, and the mathematical formalism of the wave function continues to evolve. (Carroll)
It seems that either it requires a conscious observer or with a measurement done by an apparatus constructed by a conscious being and then observed.
And that would be error. Again, observation requires neither mind nor meter. And an observation is anything that would resolve any of the quantum properties of a system. All it requires is for the decoherence to happen and that can be accomplished by hitting the thing with anything else. That decoherence resolves the probabilities in the math to reveal the eigenstate, the quantum numbers that describe the particles.
And it gets deeper from there.
The issue I see here is that we are talking electrons and not baseballs.
Take a single electron around a proton, a hydrogen atom. Where is the electron? QM says not even the Universe can know until something interacts with the atom, then the eigenstate of the electron can be resolved.
With a baseball you have gazillions of particles all nestled and josseling in one small space with constant decoherence and resolution of the probability wave happening for every particle within the ball instantaneously and constantly. The quantum probabilities have been resolved and the baseball has a definite position, momentum and all other properties.
And it stays that way even when you personally are not there to consciously 'observe' the baseball. With the electron ... no so much. It falls back to being in a superposition, with properties unknown, as soon as the first collision is complete.
At least that's my story. From what I see in this world from my research, this is not too far off the reality. I think.
Maybe someone like Son Goku can come along and correct any glaring errors.

Edited by AZPaul3, : words

Edited by AZPaul3, .


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 2:39 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 2:05 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4130
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 592 of 815 (898314)
09-22-2022 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by GDR
09-19-2022 2:54 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
"IF" God actually did bother to bring us into existence, purposefully, then yes. This is certainly an interesting question. At least on a curiosity level if nothing else.
But going from "God exists" to "God intended to create humans with a purpose" seems a really big jump - given what we've been able to learn about the universe.
All can I really say that if God bothered to bring us into existence, (even if all that He did was to introduce consciousness into the world), then it makes sense that He wouldn't do it without some purpose in mind.
Yes - I agreed with that part, that's equivalent to the first sentence I wrote.
My point is that there's a huge difference between "God created humans (accidentally - possibly without even knowing that He did it. That is - not "bothering" with it and it just sort of happened regardless of His main intentions) and "God bothered to create humans (on purpose - with a specific reason in mind.)"
I don't see you acknowledging that huge jump.
You seem to simply assume that if God exists - then He definitely created humans, on purpose.
I see three levels:
1. God exists
-maybe God doesn't exist
2. God created humans
-maybe God didn't create humans and humans were created by something else (naturally? a bigger/different God?)
3. God created humans on purpose (ie - "bothered" to create humans.)
-maybe God didn't want to create humans, but had to. That is, perhaps in order to create all the stars He wanted in the way He wanted to, God had to accommodate for the low possibility of humans also being created. And then setup a contingency that for when human-creation happens they are contained to a very small portion of the universe.
To me - going from "if God exists, then He definitely created humans and it was definitely on purpose" is just a really big jump in itself.
There's no evidence for God, no evidence for God creating humans, and no evidence for God bothering to create humans on purpose.
GDR writes:
I am very concerned with truth, realizing full well that it is a belief, and not absolute knowledge.
That very well may be, but it still seems like your belief is a higher priority than your concern for truth - even if both are high priorities.
Writers on this forum, and pretty much stated as fact, say the consciousness simply evolved as part of the evolutionary process. What is the physical evidence of that. Consciousness exists.
Consciousness existing is not the physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally.
The physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally is that it appears to be exactly the same as everything else we know to have evolved naturally.
And that other aspects of life we used to think "couldn't possibly evolve naturally" - we have learned more about evolution and identified that, actually, they did evolve naturally (like "the eye" and "fish -> mammals -> whales" and every other creationist issue that used to not have a natural answer and now does.)
Consciousness existing, alone, isn't evidence of anything other than its own existence.
There is A LOT of physical evidence for evolution and things evolving naturally. Consciousness is just another "thing" that looks like all the other "things" we know to have evolved naturally.
I am not knowledgeable enough to argue either for or against that but it does give a different POV to what gets expressed here.
Are you sure? I read through that and it seems to agree completely with a natural evolutionary emergence of consciousness.
Here are some key points that jumped out at me:
Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? writes:
...philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but instead is a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as panpsychism.
Sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks—have incredibly simple forms of experience, and the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived from the experience of the brain’s most basic parts.
Again - sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
Philosophers of science have realized that physical science, for all its richness, is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter, what it does.
I've never heard a scientist say this.
I do hear philosophers say this a lot. Seems to me like it's philosophers that try to say this sort of thing in order to "keep their job."
Science is not confined to telling us about the behavior of matter.
Science is only confined to one thing -> following the evidence.
If the evidence shows that panpsychism is real, then science will tell us that this is so.
If the evidence shows that panpsychism is not real, then science will tell us that this is so.
If there is no evidence about panpsychism being real or not, then science will ignore it just like science ignores God, unicorns, Santa Claus and all other unevidenced, imaginary ideas.
Consciousness, for the panpsychist, is the intrinsic nature of matter. There’s nothing supernatural or spiritual, but matter can be described from two perspectives.
Again - sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
Do you foresee a scenario in which panpsychism can be tested?
You can’t look inside an electron to see whether or not it is conscious, just as you can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. We know that consciousness exists only because we are conscious.
Well - this seems wrong.
We know that consciousness exists because we observe different experiences from the same stimuli.
That is - we know "rocks" have no consciousness because all rocks always react exactly the same from the same stimuli (ie - if you move a rock, it will move and be stationary wherever it's left, until moved again.)
We know "humans" have consciousness because we can react differently from the same stimuli (ie - if you move a person, some will move while others resist. Once in a location, some will remain and others will move on their own accord.)
We know "bacteria" have (some level of) consciousness because they can react differently to the same stimuli (ie - if you move a bacteria, some will move while others resist. Once in a location, some will remain and others will move on their own accord.)
The point is - we don't need to look in someone else's head and we don't need to look inside an electron.
All we have to do is see how they react to stimuli.
Seems to me like Mr. Goff is avoiding describing a test, even a theoretical one, because he fears that it won't come out in favour of his pet theory.
Why is a particular feeling correlated with a particular pattern of brain activity? As soon as you start to answer this question, you move beyond what can be, strictly speaking, tested, simply because consciousness is unobservable.
If you move beyond what can be tested, for any reason, you don't "turn to philosophy" for answers. You understand that "answers" are currently unknowable.
Philosophy may provide answers.
Religion may provide answers.
Uncle John may provide answers.
Looking at the stars/bones/cards may provide answers.
But... all those answers are just as good as any other: meaningless if you're concerned with truth as the answer is currently unknowable.
We have to turn to philosophy.
Again - sounds like someone who doesn't understand truth or science and just wants to keep their job.
Science gives us correlations between brain activity and experience. We then have to find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations.
This isn't true.
We don't "have to" find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations.
The correct answer is:
We "can" find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find the religious theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find Uncle John's theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find the stars/bones/cards theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
Or: we can personally accept that an unvalidated theory isn't needed in the slightest and some things "are" just because they are, and move on with finding more truth that we can validate and actually "know."
So - it seems to me that this panpsychism idea complies exactly with the "idea that's expressed here" that consciousness is natural, evolved naturally, and no God is required in any way for its existence. Then, panpsychism extends itself into the realm of unverified imagination and creates a comforting blanket of "an answer" for a question that doesn't really have an answer right now. For some - that's great, enjoy. For those concerned with truth - this is at best meaningless and at worse "in the way" of searching for the actual truth of the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 2:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 7:36 PM Stile has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5646
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 593 of 815 (898323)
09-22-2022 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by PaulK
09-20-2022 7:36 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes:
Is that where you got the idea that the use of the third person was evidence of authorship? Did Black actually say that? I’d appreciate a quote if he did.
I don't have a comment from Black on that but in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Richard Bauckham has several pages on the subject.
I tried to come up with a brief statement but Bauckham as a scholar goes into so much detail that it is difficult to come up with something concise.
The basic point is that the "we" passages are to give John authority and obliquely to make the point that he was an eyewitness. Referring to the author in the third person is fairly common in ancient literature. Here is an example from Josephus taken from this site. Josaephus
According to Josephus' account of the siege of Yodfat, he and his 40 soldiers were trapped in a cave by Roman soldiers. They chose suicide over capture, and settled on a serial method of committing suicide by drawing lots. Josephus states that by luck or possibly by the hand of God, he and another man remained until the end and surrendered to the Romans rather than killing themselves. This is the story given in Book 3, Chapter 8, part 7 of Josephus' The Jewish War (writing of himself in the third person):
quote:
However, in this extreme distress, he was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard [in the manner following]: "And now," said he, "since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot. He whom the lot falls to first, let him be killed by him that hath the second lot, and thus fortune shall make its progress through us all; nor shall any of us perish by his own right hand, for it would be unfair if, when the rest are gone, somebody should repent and save himself." This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also. He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God. And as he was very desirous neither to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he had been left to the last, to imbrue his right hand in the blood of his countrymen, he persuaded him to trust his fidelity to him, and to live as well as himself.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2022 7:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2022 12:57 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5646
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 594 of 815 (898327)
09-22-2022 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by PaulK
09-22-2022 2:32 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes:
This is another falsehood, and an obvious one. Q has nothing to do with the relationship between Mark and Matthew. Matthean priority does not negate Q (it’s widely accepted that Matthew predates Luke anyway), nor does Markan priority require Q (see Farrer Hypothesis)
Both the theory proposed by Farrar and the proposal of "Q" arose a couple of hundred years ago to support those that wanted to get away from the ideas that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses or by those who had direct access to eye witnesses. Up to that time, and right back to the 1st century, Matthean hadn't really been questioned, even to the point of it being the 1st Gospel in the Canon.
Your linked site points out numerous problems with both the Farrar theory and "Q". With Matthean priority the problems go away. Matthew is written early on for a primarily Jewish audience. Later Luke is written, with knowledge of Matthew for a largely Gentile audience and Mark with knowledge of Matthew but primarily using Paul's sermons writes His Gospel. This does away with all of the problems in your linked site.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2022 2:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Tangle, posted 09-22-2022 1:05 PM GDR has replied
 Message 597 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2022 1:25 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17255
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 595 of 815 (898329)
09-22-2022 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by GDR
09-22-2022 12:17 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
[quote] I tried to come up with a brief statement but Bauckham as a scholar goes into so much detail that it is difficult to come up with something concise. [quote] Or more likely he never says any such thing, because he would know that it isn’t true.
quote:
The basic point is that the "we" passages are to give John authority and obliquely to make the point that he was an eyewitness.
“We” is first person, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
quote:
Referring to the author in the third person is fairly common in ancient literature.
Which is not nearly enough to make it evidence of authorship. As I explained before. Do you really not realise that the third person is used for a great many people who are NOT the author? I shouldn’t have had to make that point once, but that you should still not see it after repeated examples suggests a serious problem
Go through Matthew, counting up the people mentioned in the third person if you still don’t see that. If we just stick to explicit pronouns in the English, chapter 1 (NRSV) has Jacob, Jeconaiah, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, so there is a start for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 12:17 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 7:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 596 of 815 (898331)
09-22-2022 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by GDR
09-22-2022 12:50 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Both the theory proposed by Farrar and the proposal of "Q" arose a couple of hundred years ago to support those that wanted to get away from the ideas that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses or by those who had direct access to eye witnesses. Up to that time, and right back to the 1st century, Matthean hadn't really been questioned, even to the point of it being the 1st Gospel in the Canon.

Your linked site points out numerous problems with both the Farrar theory and "Q". With Matthean priority the problems go away. Matthew is written early on for a primarily Jewish audience. Later Luke is written, with knowledge of Matthew for a largely Gentile audience and Mark with knowledge of Matthew but primarily using Paul's sermons writes His Gospel. This does away with all of the problems in your linked site.
Once again the church's preachings to its congregation is different from the scholarly stuff in the seminaries and universities.
I was taught the bible as though it was written by Jesus's actual apostles. Of course Mark and Luke aren't apostles but us kids didn't notice. Without exception both children and adults would have just assumed that it was all eye witness testimony.
I bet they maintain the deception even now. When I mention that no one actually knows who the authors were to everyday Christians they don't believe me - let alone that they could not have been eye witnesses.
It's all part of the scam - keep them ignorant, sell the message.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 12:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 3:06 PM Tangle has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17255
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 597 of 815 (898333)
09-22-2022 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by GDR
09-22-2022 12:50 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
Both the theory proposed by Farrar and the proposal of "Q" arose a couple of hundred years ago to support those that wanted to get away from the ideas that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses or by those who had direct access to eye witnesses. Up to that time, and right back to the 1st century, Matthean hadn't really been questioned, even to the point of it being the 1st Gospel in the Canon.

This seems mainly aimed at poisoning the well, by implying bias. It certainly doesn’t address the point that the Farrer hypothesis denies Q but does not endorse Matthean priority. Because Matthean priority has almost nothing to do with Q.
And I’ll add that a claim that the Gospel According to Matthew was attributed the the disciple in the 1st Century is questionable at best,
quote:
Your linked site points out numerous problems with both the Farrar theory and "Q".
More accurately it has Farrer’s criticisms of the Q hypothesis and Streeter’s arguments in support of it. Obviously if you admitted the latter the problems in your claims would be rather obvious.
quote:
With Matthean priority the problems go away
The problems of Luke using Matthew “go away” if you assume that Matthew was written before Mark? That makes no sense. None.
I note that the entire paragraph does not even mention Luke, yet Q is all about the relationship between Luke and Matthew - Mark is not really relevant at all.
Well let’s look at Streeter’s points against the Farrer hypothesis. Which are all points AGAINST Luke using Matthew as a source.
The first is that he would not have omitted some of the Matthean texts that he did because they are so striking
How does Matthean priority explain these omissions?
The second is that Luke sometimes preserves a more primitive version of a text that is also in Matthew.
How does Matthean priority address this point?
The third is that Luke follows Mark's order but does not do the same with Matthew
I would note that this implies that if Luke used both Mark and Matthew, it suggests a preference for Mark…
But again how does Matthean priority explain this?
The fourth is that Luke uses the material less well than Matthew.
How does Matthean priority explain this?
The final argument is that Luke does not use the material within the same Marcan paragraphs as Matthew
How does Matthean priority explain this?
If you have any concern for the truth - other than opposing it - it is not visible in this post.

Edited by PaulK, : Minor corrections


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 12:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 5:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5646
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 598 of 815 (898335)
09-22-2022 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by AZPaul3
09-22-2022 7:23 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Thankyou for all of that. I won't comment myself as I think I would easily prove my ignorance on the subject in my first sentence.
Here is an interesting wiki piece on the subject. Quantum Mind

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 7:23 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by nwr, posted 09-22-2022 3:55 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21180
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 599 of 815 (898338)
09-22-2022 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by GDR
09-19-2022 1:44 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Frankly, I don't see that I am having difficulties except I am having to discuss this with multiple individuals and it takes time which I don't always have. How about being just a tad reasonable.
Ignore an argument once and most people will probably chalk it up to just the way things go. Ignore it again and most people will probably figure the fault was with them, that maybe they didn't make their point clearly enough. But ignore arguments time and again and it's going to get noticed. You're making a career of it, forcing people to repeat the same arguments over and over.
If you don't think that I have a place on your forum , then tell me and I'll disappear. Not every post requires a response.
True, there's no need to respond to every post, but of those deserving of a response, merely posting a response is not what's key (though it's worth noting that you've replied to 66% of messages posted to you). What's most important is addressing the key points, and even that's not important unless you repeatedly ignore the same points. A variant on this is responding to key point, but then raising the issue again as if it had never been discussed before. While you've replied to almost all of my posts, key points get ignored, and you keep raising issues already discussed as if they've never been discussed before.
You must be sensing some hostility because you ask if you "have a place on your forum." But I don't think there's any hostility. I very much doubt anyone wants you to leave. It might feel like hostility to you, but from my end it feels like people expressing frustration. For example, you go on to say:
The only evidence that you and others allow is scientific evidence.
We've been over this many times, and it's frustrating to have to go over this yet again. There's only one way way to know things, and that's through evidence gathered through observation using the five senses. Scientific evidence is no different from other evidence except that's its gathering has been formalized and instrumented and calibrated and so forth, and scientific conclusions can only be drawn after sufficient replication to form a consensus.
If you think there are other ways of knowing things that don't involve observing the material world, ways that aren't just as friendly toward (for example) Buddhism as they are toward Christianity (in other words, ways of knowing things that lend legitimacy to your belief that Christianity has more legitimacy than other religions), then it's incumbent upon you to explain it to us in ways that aren't full of woo.
I have agreed there is no scientific evidence but we can draw subjective conclusions from what we observe about the world and our existence. None of you accept that. I get it.
But your subjective conclusions about Christianity are just as valid as other people's about ghosts and UFOs. That's what happens when evidence is absent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 7:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21180
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 600 of 815 (898340)
09-22-2022 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by GDR
09-19-2022 2:02 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
The point IMHO to that we have hearts that love sacrificially which is not dependent on any particular spiritual belief. However, I contend from my own experience that spiritual belief can help to move hearts in that direction. IMHO Christianity provides me with faith that this world does give us meaning and purpose in that life matters, and good stewardship of the world matters, well beyond the idea of being in good with God when we die. If we are only looking to make things netter for ourselves in this life or the next then we have missed the point.
Repeating what you just said more generally, religious beliefs of every sway have lent peace and comfort to many of all generations throughout time. How is that in any way convincing that there are legitimate reasons for accepting the reality of what you (or anyone) believes spiritually?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 2:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 3:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 626 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 7:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022