(August 21, 2009 at 5:22 am)Darwinian Wrote: No, just logic. Existence requires something to have existed, exist, or to exist in the future. Without time there is no temporal dimension to place it at.

That is not self-evidently true. In other words, there is nothing in the definition of 'exist' that demands temporality. Therefore, because it is not self-evident it must have some extrinsic justification—or is a statement of blind faith, of course.

Ok then, as I am probably unlikely to find a non temporal realm to test my theory I will concede that I have faith that my previous statement is correct based upon all the available evidence I have at my disposal.

However, if it is shown that I am incorrect I will immediately concede, but I will have learnt something in the process.

Arcanus,

You say the difference between "an infinite amount of time" and "outside of time" is in the word amount that I use...but since that amount goes on forever and ever and ever, what actual difference does it make?

You say God isn't made of many parts and therefore is not complex. But to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc, etc, etc - you can't just say he's made up of one part...how do you know he's made up of one part?

He's complex because he is unlikely to arise from chance alone... or 'just be there' from the beginning or before the beginning without explanation.

He is an absolutely extraordinary claim and he requires absolutely extraordinary evidence.

EvF

(August 20, 2009 at 11:03 pm)chatpilot Wrote: JP as I suspected all those authors and so called historians and scholars just happen to be Christian.I took the time to google them and honestly I would not waste a moment reading any of those books since they are biased by their preconceived ideas based on their faiths. Blomberg received his MA at Trinity Evangelical in my opinion Christian universities are not even appropriate places to study the scriptures. James Charlesworth is also a Christian and Paul Barnett is a bishop from Australia and Gerd Theissen is a German ordained minister. All of their studies and books combined are just as useless as the N.T. gospels for studying the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the gospels.

Since your reply was a pathetic list of Christian biased authors I will give you a list of Authors as well that can equally refute all of the trash these so called scholars put out.
1.Gospel Fictions by: Randel Helms
2.Jesus in history and myth by: R. Joseph Hoffmann and Gerald A Larue
3.The Orthodox corruption of scripture by: Bart Erhman
4.Jesus interrupted by: Bart Erhman

hell I could do this all day.And don't forget you are the one proposing that your religious founder and beliefs are true and stating them as facts just like any good Christian would do.But the onus to prove these assertions is not on the atheists but on you the believer.

The two first I mentioned may be biased (though that doesn't refute their argument or analysis). The last two are certainly not. In either case, you again failed to address my actual analysis and argument of the late dating, and, if anything, only proven that you are willing to assent to non-mainstream views (mythical Jesus) just to satisfy your own bias. Again, not that it should be a surprise.

(August 21, 2009 at 5:17 am)Arcanus Wrote: Incorrect, sorry. The TAG does not argue for the likelihood or probability of the Christian worldview. The TAG argues that the presuppositions of the Christian worldview and what can be inferred from them is the ONLY source of the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility, or making sense, of human experience. Any other worldview, when internally examined under its own terms, falls apart at some point, by being inconsistent (intrinsically or extrinsically), incoherent, inadequate, etc. The suggestion that the TAG argues for the "more likely" truth of Christianity confuses it with evidentialist apologetics.

True. Thanks for clarifying.

---

(August 21, 2009 at 8:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You say God isn't made of many parts and therefore is not complex. But to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc, etc, etc - you can't just say he's made up of one part...how do you know he's made up of one part?

Because his attributes are separate only in description, not in essence. Whereas my attribute as a human being, of having both a food and a finger, are not only separate in description, but also in essence.

(August 21, 2009 at 8:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: He's complex because he is unlikely to arise from chance alone...

You repeat the fallacy of assigning temporality to a non-temporal being.

(August 21, 2009 at 8:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: or 'just be there' from the beginning or before the beginning without explanation.

Again, not a matter of chance, since chance is the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, and implies temporality. Also, not addressing actual theistic claims, since God does have an "explanation", in his subsistence as pure actuality, just not an extrinsic cause, since he is not dependent on any extrinsic sufficient set of conditions or causes, since there are none without him, and there can be nothing extrinsic to him except that which relies on him, like impure actuality.

(August 21, 2009 at 5:17 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(August 12, 2009 at 7:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: [The law of non-contradiction] is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And this also is false. Look at the language used to express the proposition, Adrian: "something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect." Descriptives are expressed by "is/is not" statements (what is given a posteriori), while prescriptives or normatives are expressed by "can/cannot" statements (what is given a priori).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics is descriptive and can be written "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

(August 21, 2009 at 8:11 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Because his attributes are separate only in description, not in essence.

How do you know?

Quote:You repeat the fallacy of assigning temporality to a non-temporal being.

No, because I said "or", in an attempt to cover whatever.

Quote:Again, not a matter of chance, since chance is the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, and implies temporality.

You can't just define him as nontemporal so therefore he 'can't be there from the beginning because he is beyond time'. You have to show that he's nontemporal

But that's irrelevant anyway, because being outside of time makes no difference it's the same problem. You still need just as much an explanation as if he was there from the beginning or arose from chance alone. You can't just define him out of all explanation.

Quote:Also, not addressing actual theistic claims, since God does have an "explanation", in his subsistence as pure actuality, just not an extrinsic cause, since he is not dependent on any extrinsic sufficient set of conditions or causes, since there are none without him, and there can be nothing extrinsic to him except that which relies on him, like impure actuality.

Give evidence please.

EvF

(August 21, 2009 at 10:50 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But that's irrelevant anyway, because being outside of time makes no difference it's the same problem. You still need just as much an explanation as if he was there from the beginning or arose from chance alone.

It makes a fundamental ontological difference. Your definition of complexity involves temporality, because it involves "chance", and this is not a matter of chance. You need to use the substantive definition of complexity, as Arcanus rightly notes, as composition; otherwise, your statements become meaningless.

(August 21, 2009 at 10:50 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Give evidence please.

First of all, this is about entertaining the hypothesis of God and it's internal consistency and it's ontology, something you are doing even by claiming that God is "complex", by which you are obviously not conceding his existence, and evidence and actual existence is thus not the matter at hand, and if it is, this debate is not possible from your perspective to begin with. But since you always conflate different matters, then, secondly, I have already provided the foundational evidence for God as pure actuality, though you don't accept it on presuppositional grounds, and I'm not going to go into it again and play with your in your confusing between different matters.

JP wrote:"you again failed to address my actual analysis and argument of the late dating, and, if anything, only proven that you are willing to assent to non-mainstream views (mythical Jesus) just to satisfy your own bias."

JP you are basing yourself on earlier documents such as the gospel of Q and probably the gospel of Thomas as early sources that prove the existence of Jesus.Firstly Q is a collection of sayings with no context or lead ins and not surprisingly Jesus is not mentioned in Q1 ( the wisdom aphorisms) or Q2 (the apocalyptic teachings) the scholars have attributed a couple of sayings to a Q3 document but as stated earlier this is all hypothetical.Basing themselves on the many similarities almost verbatim in the accounts of Matthew and Luke although the sayings are placed in different context and stories they assume that they are both using this hypothetical Q document.The gospel of Thomas is yet another collection of sayings and it has lead ins that state "And Jesus said" etc. but most scholars agree that these were added later and not part of the original texts.

Basically you can't refute an hypothesis such as the Q document since there is not even a copy of it original or transcribed in existence.The synoptic gospels on the other hand do exist although they have been written and reworked over the years and corrupted by church scribes and copyists.I don't think that we could actually reconstruct a true copy of these gospels since they have passed through so many hands before they came to us.Atheist are not mainstream because we like to think outside the box,does that make us biased?Many of us atheist started out as believers in Christ in one form or another.Our life experiences and researches has led us to conclude that there is not physical,logical,or external evidence that validates the existence of christ. Although not all atheist agree that he did not exist they do agree that he was not a God incarnate and his legacy is based on myths years removed from his alleged death at Calvary.

(August 21, 2009 at 11:50 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Your definition of complexity involves temporality, because it involves "chance", and this is not a matter of chance.

It's a matter of chance because God has a probability of existing somewhere between 0%and 100%. Whether he is nontemporal or not he still needs just as much of an explanation and is still just as complex and improbable. You can't just dodge it by defining him outside of need for explanation. He requires the same amount of explanation.

Quote:You need to use the substantive definition of complexity, as Arcanus rightly notes, as composition; otherwise, your statements become meaningless.

No because it's bullshit. To say he's all one material doesn't make him 'simple' when he's a supernatural being, he is an extraordinary claim and he requires extaordinary evidence. If he could arise form chance and was temporal he would be very unlikely to arise from it. This is the indication of his improbability, and that indication makes him no less probable if he was there from the beginning...or, indeed, if he is nontemporal and exists outside of time. You can't just dodge the matter. He still is just as complex, still requires just as much of an explanation, and is still just as improbable untill this extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence.

Quote: I have already provided the foundational evidence for God as pure actuality, though you don't accept it on presuppositional grounds, and I'm not going to go into it again and play with your in your confusing between different matters.

Well fine, but I have not seen once tinest drop of evidence, and without evidence there's no reason to believe he exists. Who cares untill there's evidence?

EvF

(August 21, 2009 at 4:06 pm)chatpilot Wrote: JP wrote:"you again failed to address my actual analysis and argument of the late dating, and, if anything, only proven that you are willing to assent to non-mainstream views (mythical Jesus) just to satisfy your own bias."

(.. another rambling about Q ..)

Q had nothing to do with my analysis of the grounds on which the late dating of the first Gospel is accepted. Q is not the first Gospel. Q is a wholly other matter.

(August 20, 2009 at 9:00 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm)chatpilot Wrote: "Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. "

And that's exactly what I've been dealing with all along. There's nothing new in the article you linked to, and it exactly resonates with what I've already said - namely that late dates are accepted only because people believe there are prophesies in the first Gospel (though amazingly, far from all scholars agree which exact events in the first century it does prophesy; some have suggested that it prophesies events as late as in the second century, and thus postponed it's dating until the mid second century, only proving my point that vague predictions happen all the time, and are easily explained as coincidences or reasonable anticipations, before it's necesary to believe in prophecies), which is not even necessary to presuppose, and then of course, on top of that presupposition, the additional presupposition that prophesies are not possible is needed before we can infer a late date. That is not historical evidence, but philosophical presuppositions. Those dates are accepted by many scholars on grounds which are simply insufficient .