(February 1, 2015 at 2:34 pm)robvalue Wrote: We have both God and miracle undefined in a series of assertions. Indeed, it is certainly not a given that "God" is possible, especially when it hasn't even been defined yet. What the fuck is a God and how do I know it from my toaster?

What model toaster do you have?....

Generic-Creator-Max 5000

(February 1, 2015 at 2:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: Generic-Creator-Max 5000

Sounds god-like to me

(February 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 11:36 am)SteveII Wrote: You want me to comment on documents that may or may not exist and whose content I cannot be examined?

Just like you're asking us to accept the testimony of people who may or may not exist, whose content you cannot examine (remember, the bible authors are anonymous and none of them ever claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they're just commenting on second hand accounts at best.)

That's the point that you did, indeed, miss: why is your hearsay from anonymous sources okay as evidence, while you automatically doubt any hearsay that conflicts with what you already believe?

Quote:The friend who said that God did not exist, was he an eyewitness to the events of the first century? The parallel is nonsense since we are talking about an series of events and not a philosophical statement.

So what if my friend was an eyewitness or not? None of the bible authors were eyewitnesses either; both your and my accounts are second hand, they're on equal ground. I could equally also just claim that he was an eyewitness, being that he's a time traveller, and when you ask me for proof of that, I could just say that time travel is possible if my friend exists, which is the same argument exactly as your "if god exists then miracles" justification.

This is the problem: you make arguments, and then when people make the exact same arguments back to you, suddenly they're no longer effective. Which is it? Is what you're saying solid justification or not?

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

1. We don't even know if they exist.
2. We don't know their content.
3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.
2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".
2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.
3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?
4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:58 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Just like you're asking us to accept the testimony of people who may or may not exist, whose content you cannot examine (remember, the bible authors are anonymous and none of them ever claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they're just commenting on second hand accounts at best.)

That's the point that you did, indeed, miss: why is your hearsay from anonymous sources okay as evidence, while you automatically doubt any hearsay that conflicts with what you already believe?


So what if my friend was an eyewitness or not? None of the bible authors were eyewitnesses either; both your and my accounts are second hand, they're on equal ground. I could equally also just claim that he was an eyewitness, being that he's a time traveller, and when you ask me for proof of that, I could just say that time travel is possible if my friend exists, which is the same argument exactly as your "if god exists then miracles" justification.

This is the problem: you make arguments, and then when people make the exact same arguments back to you, suddenly they're no longer effective. Which is it? Is what you're saying solid justification or not?

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

1. We don't even know if they exist.
2. We don't know their content.
3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.
2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".
2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.
3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?
4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.

How do you know what the intentions of gospel writers where?

Funny thing about eyewitness testimony. It's nearly completely useless: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

I really see no reason to give any credence to the local tales of a particular Iron Age tribe, especially as they're told by people who weren't actually there to witness the events themselves, and who have a clear reason to make the figure upon whom their religion rests appear to be remarkable.

Again, just because something is written in the Bible doesn't mean it's true. Similarly, just because some things kinda sorta match up doesn't mean that the rest is true. I mean, there was a real Troy... do you think Zeus and the other Greek gods played a hand in it?

You demand rigorous standards for our evidence yet expect us to accept your hearsay based on nothing.

Hearsay, like you said yourself, cannot be cross examined. So you have no idea if it's true or not, just based on that hearsay. In other words, it's worthless. All of it. If instead you want to accept hearsay, just because you like what it says, then to be consistent and honest you have to accept all hearsay.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:58 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Just like you're asking us to accept the testimony of people who may or may not exist, whose content you cannot examine (remember, the bible authors are anonymous and none of them ever claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they're just commenting on second hand accounts at best.)

That's the point that you did, indeed, miss: why is your hearsay from anonymous sources okay as evidence, while you automatically doubt any hearsay that conflicts with what you already believe?


So what if my friend was an eyewitness or not? None of the bible authors were eyewitnesses either; both your and my accounts are second hand, they're on equal ground. I could equally also just claim that he was an eyewitness, being that he's a time traveller, and when you ask me for proof of that, I could just say that time travel is possible if my friend exists, which is the same argument exactly as your "if god exists then miracles" justification.

This is the problem: you make arguments, and then when people make the exact same arguments back to you, suddenly they're no longer effective. Which is it? Is what you're saying solid justification or not?

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

1. We don't even know if they exist.
2. We don't know their content.
3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.
2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".
2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.
3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?
4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.

You also do not have proof of eyewitness accounts, all you have is some anonymous source telling you that there where eyewitnesses.

Here are some things to note:

1) People can lie
2) People can be mistaken
3) People can make up explanations
4) People can change what has been written

These are all obviously true, do you deny that? And if not, why do you give magic powers of truth just to the people who happen to be saying what you want to be true?

The bible is not magic. It's a book like any other, so please try to treat is as such.

Maybe I missed something in the last 74 pages (I haven't actually read them all), but has anyone brought up the existence of the non-canonical gospels yet? And how the church leaders picked and chose which gospels they wanted to keep?