So...guess I'm the new guy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I agree with you guys here*. However In the video of Bart's interaction with the IG, doesn't he also lay out why he as a historian believes Jesus was an actual person?

*Vinny, why must you say such hurtful things?

Because as an atheist, I don't have objective moral values, rarrrrr!!!!

(William Lane Craig reference!)

[Reforged]

No-one here claims science explains everything, yet. It is however the only reliable way we have found to explain alot of the universe around us and our understanding of it expands everyday thanks to the scientific techniques that have been honed and researched by taking into account evidence.
Metaphysics doesn't "deal" with anything. Its a branch of philosophy, an astoundingly unbacked theory if you wanted to be generous.

No. It does not even "explain a lot of the universe". There is no "explanation of the universe". There are multiple explanations, each which come with their own sets of metaphysical assumptions that are for the most part unverifiable. You don't learn this in your high school science classes, or even in college science classes. They assume that science is just true, and atoms really look like what the bohr model portrays.

But there is other stuff. Foundational stuff. This is stuff you will only learn about in graduate or postgraduate level philosophy courses. And once you fully realize that there is really very little solid foundation for our scientific observations to make sense, your mind will be blown when you realize the impact this has on your ontological foundations.

If you want to have a head start go look up metaphysics and start reading some intro level stuff. Stuff you can understand without much background.

You will realize that everything science "knows" rests on some very interesting underlying metaphysical assumptions that are not as dependable or proven as you think.

And you NEED to have an underlying theory that serves as a foundation to how you incorporate science into your worldview. You will be surprised that philosophers like Plantinga and Popper have made science more friendly to theists than to atheists, and unless you thoroughly understand arguments like Plantinga's EAAN, you will never truly be able to develop an underlying philosophical foundation that can beat atheists up.

All you will be left with is insulting Christians. But that's for the small fry.

Oh no no no, you don't get to walk away with that.
What things are you referring to that science makes metaphysical assumptions on?
Elaborate, explain.

Also, I'd like to point out I never made any statement claiming science explains alot of the universe. I merely made the observation that science has been solely responsible for every major technological breakthrough and discovery humanity has ever made using reproducible methods that work time after time and will likely continue to play this unique and important role.
Metaphysics "explains" very little. Its all unbacked philosophy and theory. It can be entertaining, even interesting but for now there is nothing metaphysics can be used for except creating arguments that require no evidence. It produces no results.
We haven't even seen alot of the universe let alone explained it.

[neilmarr]

As the new kid on the chopping block (just registered today), I've been taking time to start looking at running threads before moving into older discussions to find my feet. This one has been interesting, instructive and fun. An infidel veteran of online forums since the stone age of internet, though, I can't help noticing that the Christian original-poster has contributed absolutely nothing of substance. Par for the course. Unless something of his pops up soon to catch my attention and tickle the few grey cells still active between my ears, the feeling that theists are educated only to the level of those jolly chaps who welcome shoppers outside supermarkets before leaving them to their own devices remains unshaken. Why not actually say something, Inundu? After all, you did promise. N

[idunno]

welcome!

What exactly am I supposed to add to this discussion? If you want substance perhaps you can take a look at the thread I started in the Christian sub forum on omniscience and free will, its a dilly of a pickle. *smiles absent mindedly*

---

I agree with you guys here*. However In the video of Bart's interaction with the IG, doesn't he also lay out why he as a historian believes Jesus was an actual person?

*Vinny, why must you say such hurtful things?

Because as an atheist, I don't have objective moral values, rarrrrr!!!!

(William Lane Craig reference!)

Absolutely. I forgot about that.

[neilmarr]

I'm working through, Idunno, and have, since my post above, found some interesting comments from you. Thanks. In this thread, though, you promised thought-provoking input which, so far, seems to have come entirely from the 'dark' side of the fence. Perhaps I read your OP wrongly and you were referring to contributions you could make in other discussions. If so, apologies, chum. Forgive me my trespasses as a raw newcomer finding his way around an amazingly busy board. Bestests. Neil

[idunno]

yeah I did mean I would hope to contribute in the future, but the misunderstanding could have been do to my being unclear as well. Again, welcome.

[Cyberman]

What would qualify as evidence in that discussion? I should of asked before.

(Please, it's "should have" or "should've"; the abuse of the word "of" in those sentence constructions sets my teeth on edge!)

Evidence would depend on whatever is being claimed or proposed, but generally and especially when we're discussing claims of historicity, evidence would be anything that maps onto reality. Any kind of logical gymnastics intended to define the conclusion into existence might be a fun exercise but unless it corrrespnds in some way to reality, it can't be considered as evidence for anything. If this is what Ehrman is trying to do then he is either being incredibly, and sorry to say say, typically dishonest or else he's so desperate to cling onto his delusions about history that he'll grab hold of any straw in the hope it'll carry the weight.

[idunno]

I seen you go off on atom for saying "should of" and couldn't resist :p

I don't see how he's doing any gymnastics though. How does his conclusion not line up with reality?

[Cyberman]

Nicely played! I should of expected it, really (and i didn't go off on Atom, I merely used his words as an illustration).

I wasn't really saying Ehrman's conclusion doesn't line up with reality; I was trying to ascertain whether he was employing the usual logical gymnastics - manipulations, if you prefer - in order to define a presupposed conclusion into reality, rather than following the evidence to see where it leads.

[idunno]

As he explained in the video, and admittedly I am taking his word on it, Jesus has been subjected to the same criteria that any other potential historical person would. Now what I'll do when I have time is verify if the criteria he listed is the standard criteria historians use.