(June 11, 2015 at 11:01 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 11, 2015 at 10:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: Is this really what you're going to do? You have the definition of a scientific theory, which includes a list of essential criteria, including falsifiability and predictive capability, parsimony, and consistency with other experimental results, and instead of seriously engaging in this conversation you're just going to dishonestly grandstand like this?

Well, whatever. You don't match any of the criteria: what you have here is just a theory, a guess based on your presuppositions, rather than a scientific theory. I'm genuinely sorry that playing up to your own pride is more important to you than the honest discussion that could have taken place here.



Universal expansion has a cause, beyond that we don't even have an adequate physics model to explain what happens. Learn your astrophysics.



Okay.



And now you've made a claim that is both unfalsifiable and unevidenced. I thought this was supposed to be a list of evidence, why are you putting a completely unjustified fiat claim on it?



Five unjustified fiat claims? How on earth can you consider this a list of evidence?




What an utter disappointment you've turned out to be. You're not interested in learning, you're just another patsy for your religion. It's completely vile that you represented yourself as someone willing to engage honestly with the facts, when in truth you were nothing but. I thought your god didn't like liars, so I guess your devotion to him is secondary to your need to massage your ego.

I never said I was proposing a scientific theory.

You label my evidence as unjustified fiat claims. I did not dream these things up. There is evidence. You might not like the quality of the evidence, but evidence never-the-less. BTW, I forgot Fine-tuning.

I have heard your arguments over and over again against this list. I don't find them convincing when you consider the whole list at the same time. I am not attempting to prove the existence of God--merely defend the idea that it is reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity.

Dishonest yet again....

(June 11, 2015 at 11:01 am)SteveII Wrote: I never said I was proposing a scientific theory.

So then besides making cheap rhetorical points, what was the point of all this? It's pretty clear that we hold scientific theories in higher regard than the other kind, it's why we took exception to your lazy creationist talking points to begin with.

Quote:You label my evidence as unjustified fiat claims. I did not dream these things up. There is evidence. You might not like the quality of the evidence, but evidence never-the-less.

So, another thing you don't know the meaning of: evidence versus claims. "Jesus existed and did miracles," is not evidence, it is a claim. Evidence is an observation or referent of the real world that supports a claim, and you've provided none.

Quote:BTW, I forgot Fine-tuning.

How did you determine that the universe was fine tuned? And by that I mean, how did you determine that this specific universe is any more significant than any other? Because without that, you don't even have a basis for fine tuning at all.

Quote:I have heard your arguments over and over again against this list. I don't find them convincing when you consider the whole list at the same time. I am not attempting to prove the existence of God--merely defend the idea that it is reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity.

The whole list together is just one factually incorrect premise, two factually correct premises that don't point to your god, and a series of assertions you make. Would you take that list seriously if I changed the last five premises to be assertions that Brahma was real, and we all knew it? Why not? The content of the list wouldn't have changed, only the nouns used...

Oh, right: this has more to do with maintaining your presuppositions than it does accurately reflecting and arguing for a state of affairs in reality.

(June 11, 2015 at 10:51 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 11, 2015 at 10:38 am)SteveII Wrote: I am not trying to prove anything here. All I can do is compare other religious to my list of 8 and see how they stack up. If another religions takes into account my list and theorizes a different scenario, I would also consider that religion reasonable. Again, not true, just reasonable.

Absurd. #5 is not only unsubstantiated, but necessarily excludes all other religions.

Which might be the reason I think that Christianity is the correct hypothesis. I believe that the first century Christians experienced and believed what they saw and wrote. I have yet to hear a hypothesis that has more explanatory powers for what we know and what followed. There might be a better theory out there that, with alternate explanations to the other 7 (although I would add Fine Tuning) might make another reasonable hypothesis. 

(June 11, 2015 at 11:14 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 11, 2015 at 10:51 am)Cato Wrote: Absurd. #5 is not only unsubstantiated, but necessarily excludes all other religions.

Which might be the reason I think that Christianity is the correct hypothesis. I believe that the first century Christians experienced and believed what they saw and wrote. I have yet to hear a hypothesis that has more explanatory powers for what we know and what followed. There might be a better theory out there that, with alternate explanations to the other 7 (although I would add Fine Tuning) might make another reasonable hypothesis. 

What good will your hypothesis do you in a fox hole?

J/K The more you can doubt your beliefs the more likely you are to hang on to your sanity. Keep the faith.

Woah, why the shift to 'hypothesis'. Isn't entirely misusing and misrepresenting one term enough for you?

(June 11, 2015 at 8:51 am)SteveII Wrote: According to the Christian THEORY (since I don't need to be certain of anything to have a theory, I just need some evidence that agrees with my conclusions) God has interacted with our reality (not meant to be an exhaustive list):

1) The universe had a cause
2) Life exists
3) Complex biological systems exist
4) The ancient Jews interacted with God quite a bit
5) Jesus came, ministered, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected
6) Miracles still happen
7) There is a god-shaped hole in everyone's psychology
8) The "inter-witness of the Holy Spirit" (there, that should get all the WLC fans going)

Of course you will pick apart each one as "you can't prove..." and "baseless assertions". I don't have to prove them, just like evolution, the mountain of evidence I have points to a probabilistic conclusion that the God of Christianity exists. Until I am presented with a theory that answers all of these questions with a different answer, that is what I choose to believe.

Despite the vitriol that is sure to come, this is not an unreasonable THEORY--much like believing in evolutionary theory is not unreasonable.

I am generally not inclined to help other theists.
1.  Argued under the cosmological argument for the existence of God (synthetic apriori) by which a cause without cause becomes necessary in order to begin any causal chain and avoid infinite regression.  Further assumed within the Big Bang theory as there would exist no other reason for the infinitely hot and dense while infinitesimally small singularity to change from its previous state and begin expansion.  (The big bang theory does not say what banged or why).

2.  Argued in accordance or opposition to arguments of statistical significance or probability.  General argument against God is while possible still improbable and if improbable than nonexistent.  Life exists and has a statistic probability of approximately 1/(1x10^390) to 1/(1x10^40) (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life) in both cases a statistical improbability.  Since life exists though improbable its very existence serves as an invalidation of the second premise that what is improbable is nonexistent.

3.  Is just another form of 2.

4.  Is an anecdotal argument which is as valid as any other anecdotal argument. (meaning not very, but the truth of the matter must provide explanation for the anecdotal observation).

5.  Everything save the resurrection has sufficient historical evidence to be consider a historical fact.  However, such is insufficient to serve as proof of divinity.

6.  In catholicism this determination is facilitate by the "devil's advocate" (it is not just a movie) whose job is to posit any other possible explanation than supernatural, which may only be dismissed by factual proof.  Only when all possible explanation are dismissed by proof is something referred to as a miracle. 

7.  A presupposition of persons that cannot be evidenced as true.

8.  Another form of the anecdotal argument.

(June 11, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: 5.  Everything save the resurrection has sufficient historical evidence to be consider a historical fact.  

Oh boy...

(June 11, 2015 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 11, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: 5.  Everything save the resurrection has sufficient historical evidence to be consider a historical fact.  

Oh boy...

Anima,
Are you suggesting that the performance of miracles is historical fact? Or did you mean to omit this along with divinity claims?

(June 11, 2015 at 11:10 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, another thing you don't know the meaning of: evidence versus claims. "Jesus existed and did miracles," is not evidence, it is a claim. Evidence is an observation or referent of the real world that supports a claim, and you've provided none.

I was writing in summary bullets. Is this better?

I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed.
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that the first century Christians recorded what they believed to be true.
I believe that there is not sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that it was all a conspiracy.