Can't prove the supernatural God

[Ignorant]

I don't know what a theist thinks natural means. What definition of natural includes things generated out of nothing by magic?

The quicker you settle this misunderstanding/miscommunication, the quicker you can have an actually fruitful discussion. Just my two cents.

[robvalue]

I agree, that would be good.

If any theist wants to tell me what "natural" means to them, I'd be interested. I've not heard anything coherent as of yet.

Obviously, we have natural and "man made", but this is not the same context.

[Ignorant]

I agree, that would be good.

If any theist wants to tell me what "natural" means to them, I'd be interested. I've not heard anything coherent as of yet.

Obviously, we have natural and "man made", but this is not the same context.

Well, the word has a long history. I find that, especially in the context of discussions like these, the "older" understanding of natural is most helpful. Nature, in the older metaphysical terminology, was nearly synonymous with "essence" or "substance". In short, a thing's "nature" described the thing's "what-ness". In the stricter sense, it described a specific type of substance which had its own power of growth and change (e.g. living things like trees, animals, people, etc.) which was directed toward and by the "fulfillment" of the thing's nature.

So, for this sort of discussion, a simplified use of the term nature could be: the "what" of a thing which describes 1) what it is and 2) what it does/can do in response to other natures
and 3)  what it does/can do to become fully what it is

Not all things have a #3 (i.e. some things just are what they are, and don't "grow" into what they are)

Natural, then, describes those things and events which occur/happen according to things' natures.

It is natural for a fruit true to make fruit. It is not natural for a fruit tree to make human cells.

It may be natural for some specimens in a population to survive a change in conditions while it is natural for other members of the same population to succumb to those same conditions.

Given that a human person is naturally able to see the visible spectrum of light, he naturally sees that spectrum. If a human being was able to see beyond that spectrum, there are only a few possibilities for that:

1) The person's nature has been altered in some way (e.g. genetic variation/mutation) that provides for the person to see the new wavelengths naturally

OR

2) The person sees the new wavelengths through an instrument which translates those wavelengths into the visible spectrum

OR

3) The person sees the new wavelengths by some other means that is not derived from the abilities of the person's nature, but also not instrumentally. In other words, the person sees,through his nature, what his nature is not able to see, i.e. supernaturally (beyond nature, above nature, etc.)

OR

4) Several other possibilities...

[SteveII]

"Nature is the sum total of reality" You are asserting that nature is all there is. Why do you get to assert that? Science does not make that claim (it can't make metaphysical claims). So what reasoning do you have for saying that supernaturally caused events cannot and do not happen. Please try not to make your claim circular (they don't happen because they can't happen).

Because it is axiomatic you dunce. If we allow the existence of one being outside of reality how can we say other such beings, like Brahma, Nuggan, Sauron, Loki or Q don't also exist?

If you want your god to be able to affect nature from outside nature, then you've got to accept the reality of all other beings who have been proposed that can do the same and who have the same evidential basis (which, as we're starting from god is 0).

So, no you don't have a reason that isn't circular. Your argument If God, then gods, to be polite, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. If there were metaphysical and physical evidence for any of those other gods you mentioned, we could consider them. By your own admission there is none.

[SteveII]

"Nature is the sum total of reality" You are asserting that nature is all there is. Why do you get to assert that? Science does not make that claim (it can't make metaphysical claims). So what reasoning do you have for saying that supernaturally caused events cannot and do not happen. Please try not to make your claim circular (they don't happen because they can't happen).

The only circular logic is yours, Christian.

It works way better if you have something to add to the discussion. Ask a question, answer a question and be prepared to defend that answer. If all you do are juvenile one-liners, I will block your posts so they don't clutter up my screen.

[SteveII]

So in one sentence you ask for "various different sources" and in the very next sentence you say "it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources". You win. I can't argue with that logic.

You can't possibly be that stupid.

You asked how we get to know that anything is the truth, I told you that usually we get to the the truth (or as close as we can manage) by corroborating evidence from varying different sources.

I then, being generous, asked you for just one other source than the Bible.  Just one.  Those 27 sources, constitute the Bible dickhead, so you, luckily, as I am so generous, are now being asked to find one other source please.  Just one.

Or will you avoid the challenge in a pathetic attempt at being clever?

There are a couple of references of Jesus elsewhere (Tacitus, Josephus), but really, what would you expect to see from Jesus' time or shortly thereafter? 99.9% of documents are lost to history. The Christian movement was not especially noteworthy outside of Palestine for at least several decades. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD. Also, why wouldn't your skepticism apply to the next document? Why stop? 

Do you disagree that there were churches in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome by AD 50-60? It is clear there was "an effect" so, the debate is what was "the cause". There is not sufficient reasons to dismiss "the cause" as the life of Jesus (as claimed in 27 separate documents). 

The discussion in this link shows the early non-NT people and writings:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29

[Redbeard The Pink]

Pretty much all religions already existed by the time somebody decided to write something down about them. The claim already existing when somebody recorded it is not evidence that the claim in circulation was true. Why would you even think that?

We are not talking about all religions. We are talking about a specific set of facts.  In all cases, the authors believed the "claim in circulation" was true--not simply reporting it (an important distinction). Under all your supposed rationale for denying the events is simply a belief that they did not happen. This faulty reasoning does nothing to undermine the NT books.

See, that's where you're wrong. You're insisting that those 27 books are historical evidence, and I'm insisting that they are a catalog of myths believed and recorded by a particular offshoot of Judaism, and that to be believed they would need to be corroborated by additional, unbiased evidence (like the claims of any other religion). Those 27 books were written by people who believed a religious claim and compiled by people who believed that same claim because those books (sort of) agree with whatever narrative they were trying to establish at the time (which, by the way, was hundreds of years later, and that process included the parsing out of LOTS of texts written by people who also believed this claim). I have never seen a shred of believable evidence that any of those books were actually written by an eye witness, and many of the supposed "authors" of those books did not exist at all, and many of the events purported in those books do not align with what we know of the Roman Empire and that region from that time period. I say "that region" kind of loosely, because the geography presented in the New Testament is also problematic in various places. Simply put, the New Testament is no better supported by evidence than the story of Athena bursting forth from Zeus's skull

No, Steve. It does not. Those 27 books are a catalog of claims. They are only evidence of ancient scribes writing a book and what those scribes believed. The claims made in the book must be proven by something other than the book itself. It does not matter that the claims were already in circulation when the book was written; the book is merely documenting the claims, and therefore is effectively the claim.

That is not a defensible position.  How are all historical events known? The writing down always follows the event. Then you say that the claims in a book must be proven by something other than the book. How about 26 more books? How about the fact that churches existed outside of Palestine 20 years and all the way to Rome in less than 30 years after Jesus? How about the fact there is literally an unbroken chain of people who believed these events to be true with surviving writings from almost every generation since.

Repeated empirical data tells us that eye witness testimony from memory is one of the worst forms of evidence available, and that second- and third-hand and so-on accounts are practically useless. That said, the unfortunate fact is that for many historical events, all we have are written accounts that are copies of copies. Now, there can be more than that...things like wars, towns, roads, bodies of water, etc. leave demonstrable marks on the world, and from those we can actually go out into the field and see if the evidence lines up.


As it turns out, it does not. For one thing, various parts of the Bible directly contradict what we know from various realms of science...pretty much all of them, actually. There's also the problem that most accounts that are considered historical do not include magic because magic is not a demonstrable phenomenon. When I say magic, I am also referring to prayer and miracles. Blessings are the sort of enchanting a god does. Miracles are the sort of magic a god does. Prayer is the sort of spell you cast if you are appealing to a god rather than a spirit or a force of nature. You believe in magic, and copies of copies of testimonies about myths that are not supported by extraneous historical evidence and whose claimed events are not repeatable under virtually any conditions are not sufficient evidence for believing in magic. We might have to go on that when we determine that a war happened, or that a person was in power, or that a particular story, belief, or group of people was in a certain place at a certain time, but in many cases we don't. Written record isn't the only record of history, but it IS the only record of your claims, and because of the nature of your claims (gods and magic exist, men can rise from the dead, etc), you need better evidence than written records of hearsay. If gods exist and magic is possible, you (or somebody) should be able to demonstrate that under lab conditions before anybody has a reason to believe you.

Regarding why should we expect to see other contemporary sources to Jesus refer to him, three things: 1) 99.99% of documents are lost to history, 2) why would anyone write outside of Palestine about Jesus until it became obvious that the church was growing a generation later? and 3) why wouldn't your standard above apply to this "missing proof"? By your own rationale, this "missing proof" would not be reliable either because it is simply another claim for which there would be no proof. The regression has to stop someplace.

I have asked this before and have yet to get an answer from anyone. What ancient series of events has more background information than the life of Christ? I don't expect you to believe the content. However, you knowingly or unknowingly are using bad excuses to justify your disbelief.

You're...you're kidding me, right? Ever heard of archaeology? Anthropology? One of the ways we gauge the accuracy of written accounts is by lining them up with evidence we find in the physical world. Sure, this was a while back, but you're only talking about a few thousand years ago. We have LOTS of archaeological evidence from that time and long before it, and much of it contradicts both the Old and New Testament.

What reason do I have to think those people believed wrong things (especially the witnesses)?

What reason do you have to believe that the New Testament was written by eye witnesses or from eye witness testimony?

You are conflating a belief in an idea with the belief as a result of either 1) an event directly observed or 2) facts easily checked with those thousands (or more) that observed them. To make your analogy better, the suicide bomber would have had been taught by Mohammad, thought his message compelling, observed many miraculous signs, watched him die, and met him alive again.

No, I believe that anybody from history that has actually died because they believed in Jesus did so because they believed in an idea. I have seen precious little evidence that these "witnesses," or the characters themselves, for that matter, even existed, much less that they died for what they believed because they allegedly saw it.

Again, why would you confuse one set of facts with another set that literally has no similarities? I am saying that with so many documents and the church expansion in the first 50 years since Christ's death, you are left with the two conclusions: 1) the authors really believed what they wrote, or 2) there was a really involved conspiracy.

You do not get to apply blinders to discussions about religious claims. Buddhism, for example, has roughly the same level and kind of evidence that you're describing, right down to the adherents dying for what they believe. It is based on figures that are believed to be vaguely historical, it rapidly expanded early on and continues to do so, it is supported only by ancient writings about wild claims and the personal testimony of its adherents...same thing with Islam. You must apply the same standard of evidence to all the claims you evaluate, and you are not doing that. You are dismissing some claims whose evidence meets the same standards as things you accept, and that is intellectually dishonest.

[SteveII]

Read this if you want to know just how far off you are. Also, have you ever looked at the approximate dates each book of the NT was written?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29

What do you think the abrupt ending of Mark proves? Certainly nothing that would support your argument. In the last few versus of the "uncontested" portion, it is clear that Jesus was expecting to see them again in Galilee. 


Some scholars believe the author of Mark included an OLDER passage on the death and resurrection into his original book that would have been familiar to the audience and therefore sometimes separated early on from the rest of the book.

It shows that the bible has been significantly altered post writing, and considering that original Mark is present in the Codex Vaticanus we know that this alteration didn't become set theology until hundreds of years after christ's alleged life and death. While I'm not going to speculate on early christian theologies (hard to speculate on something with only fragmented scraps of evidence), I will say that that major change is strong evidence that current chritianity was massively altered at some stage.

Some "scholars" also believe that global warming isn't anthropogenic or that people used ride on dinosaurs. Just because you can get somebody in a cap and gown to agree with you doesn't make your assertions correct. The evidence we have shows that until at least the 200s CE Mark stopped at 16:8, if you want to claim different, provide evidence to back your claim. Anyways, appealing to biblical "scholarship" doesn't cut it for me, because like economics to much of that discipline is spent trying to fit facts to preconceived assumptions, either bt omission of inconvenient realities, or the invention of documents, or the acceptance of obvious falsehoods.

The dating of the oldest copy of Mark to the 300s does not mean anything other than that. Your charge of massively altered is not supported--just another one of those things people say over an over again to justify their position. 

You didn't comment on Mark 16:6 and how that fits into your theory. 

So, even if I post rebuttal after rebuttal to your unsupported objections, you are just going to fall back on "biblical scholarship doesn't cut it for me". Glad you stopped me.

[robvalue]

---

I agree, that would be good.

If any theist wants to tell me what "natural" means to them, I'd be interested. I've not heard anything coherent as of yet.

Obviously, we have natural and "man made", but this is not the same context.

Well, the word has a long history. I find that, especially in the context of discussions like these, the "older" understanding of natural is most helpful. Nature, in the older metaphysical terminology, was nearly synonymous with "essence" or "substance". In short, a thing's "nature" described the thing's "what-ness". In the stricter sense, it described a specific type of substance which had its own power of growth and change (e.g. living things like trees, animals, people, etc.) which was directed toward and by the "fulfillment" of the thing's nature.

So, for this sort of discussion, a simplified use of the term nature could be: the "what" of a thing which describes 1) what it is and 2) what it does/can do in response to other natures
and 3)  what it does/can do to become fully what it is

Not all things have a #3 (i.e. some things just are what they are, and don't "grow" into what they are)

Natural, then, describes those things and events which occur/happen according to things' natures.

It is natural for a fruit true to make fruit. It is not natural for a fruit tree to make human cells.

It may be natural for some specimens in a population to survive a change in conditions while it is natural for other members of the same population to succumb to those same conditions.

Given that a human person is naturally able to see the visible spectrum of light, he naturally sees that spectrum. If a human being was able to see beyond that spectrum, there are only a few possibilities for that:

1) The person's nature has been altered in some way (e.g. genetic variation/mutation) that provides for the person to see the new wavelengths naturally

OR

2) The person sees the new wavelengths through an instrument which translates those wavelengths into the visible spectrum

OR

3) The person sees the new wavelengths by some other means that is not derived from the abilities of the person's nature, but also not instrumentally. In other words, the person sees,through his nature, what his nature is not able to see, i.e. supernaturally (beyond nature, above nature, etc.)

OR

4) Several other possibilities...

---

OK, thank you for your response

If everything was designed and created by an intelligence, are you saying the "nature" of things is simply what the designer decides was its nature?

And are we, as humans, able to alter the "nature" of things? In such a case, are we supernatural? Is the action supernatural?

Is natural simply a subjective term?

[Mister Agenda]

You might consider that Paul never encountered any 'historical Jesus', so nothing he wrote (discounting that some of 'his' letters were likely not written by him) counts as an eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus; and the identity of the Gospel authors is unknown (but almost certainly not the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John), so it is difficult to claim they are reliable. Also, Matthew, Luke, and John seem to be largely copied from Mark, with additional miracles that grow the farther in time from the supposed events the books were written.

I lean about 51% toward there having actually been a Yeshua who came to a bad end at the hands of the Romans for sedition whose sayings were collected and referred to by Mark, but almost nothing about him in the Bible can be considered reliable using normal historical methodology to determine such.

If you want to know more, there are books on the topic.

As I have pointed out, Paul gives evidence of the belief being held by the early church (and how widespread it had become in 20 years) within the same generation as Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John writers are probably editors who followed the disciple the book was named for. Luke was a well-educated man who was sent to find out what happened and wrote Luke and Acts. They all had differing audiences so you get some things emphasized as important to the audience. There is evidence that any writings were copied and disseminated to the various pockets of Christianity. It is easy to see why one editor of a gospel would have in his library any earlier writings. That does not mean that "his" apostle didn't remember some things the same and other things differently. There is no contradictions on main theological points.

I am curious why you do not think that Jesus' life (notice I do not say resurrection) is not the most attested series of events in ancient history. What event has more sources and more evidence that the people of that day believed at least the basic facts of Jesus?

So, no eyewitnesses to an actual, living Jesus wrote any of it. Attesting to what other people attest is what makes it hearsay. Attesting doesn't stop Chinese Whispers or other message corruption; even if all concerned are trying to be honest, the more links in a chain of attestation, the weaker it is.