'Jesus was not the messiah'

red g jacks

i see.. i've heard that there are countless mythological figures with many of the same attributes as jesus but never really looked into it too deep. one of the specific ones ive heard of was horus, from the egyptian mythology, but the only answer i've ever received from a believer in regards to this is that these stories about horus were 'not written prior to the new testament' but later adopted and added to the character's legacy.

i do know that the biblical creation myth is from the babylonian story.. and that stories like the flood myth and the tower of bable have other versions in other mythologies..

i'm mostly used to discussing this with christians, and they usually respond well to arguments based on scripture since they take that rather seriously, while any argument attributing credit to another religion or mythology is instantly written off. the main argument that they seem to give for faith in jesus christ over any other form of worship is that jesus fulfilled countless prophecies and made it obvious to those that seek him that he is the real deal.. so this is a claim that i have taken some interest in

personally i like reading the religious scriptures even though i don't believe any of it.. i think spirituality is just recognizing beauty in life and applying poetic interpretations

ADarksideJedi

Originally posted by Digi
Well, there are videos either way, and in a zero-sum question ("Is Jesus the Messiah" wink

one side has to be right.

But yeah, it kind of flies in the face of reason. It's really youtube comments that are tautologically dumb, not necessarily the videos.

Both are dumb,

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by red g jacks
however i accept that i haven't read the bible front to back

Most people don't, even Christians. And it doesn't actually matter as much as you might think. Trying to get a handle on Christian doctrine based on memorizing the Bible is like thinking you can practice law because you know the Bill of Rights.

Bardock42

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I find it hard to believe that something on youtube is right.

But a book is fine?

Digi

Originally posted by red g jacks
i see.. i've heard that there are countless mythological figures with many of the same attributes as jesus but never really looked into it too deep. one of the specific ones ive heard of was horus, from the egyptian mythology, but the only answer i've ever received from a believer in regards to this is that these stories about horus were 'not written prior to the new testament' but later adopted and added to the character's legacy.

i do know that the biblical creation myth is from the babylonian story.. and that stories like the flood myth and the tower of bable have other versions in other mythologies..

i'm mostly used to discussing this with christians, and they usually respond well to arguments based on scripture since they take that rather seriously, while any argument attributing credit to another religion or mythology is instantly written off. the main argument that they seem to give for faith in jesus christ over any other form of worship is that jesus fulfilled countless prophecies and made it obvious to those that seek him that he is the real deal.. so this is a claim that i have taken some interest in

personally i like reading the religious scriptures even though i don't believe any of it.. i think spirituality is just recognizing beauty in life and applying poetic interpretations

Horus is a good example, and much of it did predate Jesus. A lot of imagery and plot from the "Christmas story" of Jesus' birth was also co-opted. Walking on water and rising from the dead are also popular motifs/stories, along with many Old Testament stories like the flood and Book of Job.

It is popular to dismiss certain myths that were contemporaries of Jesus (Mithra, for example) by saying they adopted Christian aspects, not the other way around. What I can't fathom is how you can have it one way but not the other, with the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that a LOT of savior myths were all borrowing from each other. Sometimes this was deliberate, as you could placate former followers of one deity-figure by introducing them to similar thematic elements for your particular god or savior.

There's a lot of easily-found mythological scholarship that can put this into concrete terms, which I don't have the time, space, or patience for. Joseph Campbell is a great starting author for this stuff, and is also a personal hero of mine. His works are a great introduction into this idea without being demeaning or laden with a religious agenda. In fact, he manages to cast myths in an amazingly inspiring light, while simultaneously showing how it's silly and limiting to think of them as literal truth.

lil bitchiness

Christianity, Judaism and Islam as mainstream religions have borrowed the most from the Symerian religions.

Hebrews interpreted/borrowed many of the Sumerian myths - from Adam and Eve, to Eden to great flood..etc. Heaps of other things in the OT are actual Sumerian stories, slightly changed, or in cases of certain prayers and/or hymns completely copied.

This later incorporated into Christianity and Islam.

With this in mind, I think the argument of whether Jesus was a messiah or not are rather trivial.
Real interesting argument would be going back to the Sumerian myths and discussing further possible interpretations...
Actually, that would be very interesting.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Digi
Joseph Campbell is a great starting author for this stuff, and is also a personal hero of mine. His works are a great introduction into this idea without being demeaning or laden with a religious agenda. In fact, he manages to cast myths in an amazingly inspiring light, while simultaneously showing how it's silly and limiting to think of them as literal truth. sounds good. any specific book of his you'd recommend starting with?

ADarksideJedi

Even books have faults not talking about the bible I believe that more then what I read in other books or youtube videos.

jaden101

Surely I can't be the only person who's immediate though upon reading the title of this thread was....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOuWWzP7wl0

Digi

Originally posted by red g jacks
sounds good. any specific book of his you'd recommend starting with?

Yeah:
http://www.amazon.com/Hero-Thousand-Faces-Bollingen/dp/1577315936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296621204&sr=8-1
...his first, best, and most widely read book. It accurately condenses the entirety of his life's work into one novel, though more nuance can be found in his others.

If you enjoy his ideas, style, and message, once you've digested 2-3 of his books, I'd also highly recommend this:
http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Art-Living-Campbell-Companion/dp/0060926171/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1296621204&sr=8-9
Which is an amazing collection of anecdotes from his life, bits of lectures, excerpts of texts, and stories he told, that are at once inspiring and uplifting in a way self-help books only wish they were. It's a breathtaking collection of wisdom.

Sorry, fanboy rant over. Enjoy, I hope.

meep-meep

Originally posted by Digi
Well, there are videos either way, and in a zero-sum question ("Is Jesus the Messiah" wink

one side has to be right.

But yeah, it kind of flies in the face of reason. It's really youtube comments that are tautologically dumb, not necessarily the videos.

I just added a new word to my vocab today. A word I didn't know before, I know now. Now I know it. wink

Darth Truculent

Don't swallow the Kool-Aid of some teachers who believe that the Bible contradicts itself. Mere mortals cannot fully understand it and to believe we can is arrogant at its core.

Digi

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Don't swallow the Kool-Aid of some teachers who believe that the Bible contradicts itself. Mere mortals cannot fully understand it and to believe we can is arrogant at its core.

If you're right, then we simply can't understand it and it's essentially worthless to us as a guide. Presumably, God already knows his laws and such, so the Bible would be solely for our benefit...and why make a text that is inherently incomprehensible to the people it was made for?

Sorry, but your post makes zero sense to me.

Darth Truculent

Zigi my friend, many scholars, priests and pastors try to understand some of the Bible and interpret it. Wars have been fought over it (Catholism & Protestantism). That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

Many believe in the "Big Bang Theory" - can you prove it happened? Nope. You rely on some science that has been proven false. Evolution is the next hot topic - can you prove it? Nope. A chimp is our closest "relative" but why can't human DNA be combatable with monkey? The Soviets tried it in the 30s and failed. I can write a lot more evidence, but I lack the time due to the fact that I have to get back to work.

Rebutall?

Deja~vu

I did not come from a hairy monkey. That's just ewww.

Digi

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Zigi my friend, many scholars, priests and pastors try to understand some of the Bible and interpret it. Wars have been fought over it (Catholism & Protestantism). That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

Many believe in the "Big Bang Theory" - can you prove it happened? Nope. You rely on some science that has been proven false. Evolution is the next hot topic - can you prove it? Nope. A chimp is our closest "relative" but why can't human DNA be combatable with monkey? The Soviets tried it in the 30s and failed. I can write a lot more evidence, but I lack the time due to the fact that I have to get back to work.

Rebutall?

Your first paragraph doesn't address my last post, and why we should believe the Bible if you say we lack the ability to understand it.

The second simply reveals a poor understanding of what we know and have proven via empirical study. I'll be honest and say that your attacks on Big Bang and evolution are sorely lacking, and it's likely you don't have the requisite knowledge on them to argue them coherently. I'll address your individual points below, but doubt that any progress will be made in our argument until you have a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in evolution and the nature of the universe.

First, proving something happened is not the same as having valid reason for believing it. If pressed by a non-believer, you'd have a hard time proving beyond doubt that the earth is spherical. Yet you believe the Earth is round (or if you don't, this conversation is worthless). You base this on observations made by scientific studies, as well as logical arguments posed to you. And if we take reality to its fullest existential end, it can be said that we can't really prove anything in an objective sense. But there are valid reasons for believing in the roundness of the Earth. In other words, scientific "faith" in facts about our universe is not blind faith, it is based in empirical study and independently corroborated data.

Second, what science has been proven false that discredits the Big Bang theory of creation? Be specific, I can't argue against completely vague statements.

Third, what do you mean by compatible (I assume that's the word you meant to use)? If you mean it how I originally read it, different species are by their very definition beings whose DNA is not compatible. Related or not, we aren't chimps and vice-versa because of our DNA. You'll also have to elaborate on what the Russian scientists tried in the 30's (not that anything that old should really be counted as counter-evidence, but I'll humor you)...I can't comment on something you haven't explained in enough detail to understand.

long pig

i love it when people who cant understand and or never read the bible quote/use theories from others who also cant understand and/or never read the bible to disprove the bible. seriously, there is nothing magical about reading the bible and studying it. if the average wannabe bible critic did, they might not say such idiotic things. the only person proven to be 'not who he claimed to be' is the you tuber himself. there has yet to be any true contradictions to be mentioned. as for digi, i think who mentioned 'sumarians', you show ignorance. Of course they have very similar histories and stories as hebrews, they are the same races. Both are semites. same with hebrews and ancient assyrians. They also have an identical creation, adam, satan, flood story etc. just with diff names. over 80% of ancient cultures have nearly identical stories. logic dictates that with so many identical stories from people who never met there must be truth to the stories.

long pig

as for jesus being the messiah, there was a study by Chuck Missler, a historian, published that said if we assume the old testament is true, by probability alone it's in the area of a trillion trillion trillion to one of someone fulfilling just the four or five of the prophesies the historical jesus fulfilled that secular contemporaries with no reason to lie, have confirmed as fact. i.e when he was born and killed(daniel said to the day when messiah would be born and killed). where he was born. how he was born. who killed him, how he died and with and how he was buried. By probability alone he had to be messiah

Digi

Originally posted by long pig
logic dictates that with so many identical stories from people who never met there must be truth to the stories.

Actually, it doesn't dictate that at all. Do I really need to explain to you other possible explanations, all of them more likely than the Bible being true?

inimalist

Originally posted by long pig
By probability alone he had to be messiah

and you have the audacity to call other people ignorant?

Mindship

Originally posted by long pig
logic dictates that with so many identical stories from people who never met there must be truth to the stories. Agreed. They point to a common reliable source.

red g jacks

Originally posted by long pig
i love it when people who cant understand and or never read the bible quote/use theories from others who also cant understand and/or never read the bible to disprove the bible. seriously, there is nothing magical about reading the bible and studying it. if the average wannabe bible critic did, they might not say such idiotic things. the only person proven to be 'not who he claimed to be' is the you tuber himself. there has yet to be any true contradictions to be mentioned. as for digi, i think who mentioned 'sumarians', you show ignorance. Of course they have very similar histories and stories as hebrews, they are the same races. Both are semites. same with hebrews and ancient assyrians. They also have an identical creation, adam, satan, flood story etc. just with diff names. over 80% of ancient cultures have nearly identical stories. logic dictates that with so many identical stories from people who never met there must be truth to the stories. its not actually about contradictions per se, its about the validity of the proposed 'fulfilled prophecies'

red g jacks

Originally posted by long pig
as for jesus being the messiah, there was a study by Chuck Missler, a historian, published that said if we assume the old testament is true, by probability alone it's in the area of a trillion trillion trillion to one of someone fulfilling just the four or five of the prophesies the historical jesus fulfilled that secular contemporaries with no reason to lie, have confirmed as fact. i.e when he was born and killed(daniel said to the day when messiah would be born and killed). where he was born. how he was born. who killed him, how he died and with and how he was buried. By probability alone he had to be messiah i want you to expand on this. post a source or something.

i was under the impression we don't actually know what day jesus was born/killed on

Lucius

Originally posted by long pig
as for jesus being the messiah, there was a study by Chuck Missler, a historian, published that said if we assume the old testament is true, by probability alone it's in the area of a trillion trillion trillion to one of someone fulfilling just the four or five of the prophesies the historical jesus fulfilled that secular contemporaries with no reason to lie, have confirmed as fact. i.e when he was born and killed(daniel said to the day when messiah would be born and killed). where he was born. how he was born. who killed him, how he died and with and how he was buried. By probability alone he had to be messiah

Chuck Missler isn't a historian, he's a mathematician and devotee of Hal Lindsy. I should know, my parents are close friends of the idiot.

This is the same Chuck Missler that claims that if evolution is true, he should be able to randomly open a jar pf peanut butter and find life.

long pig

so we finally admit, the highly touted contradictions aren't contradictions, they are just copy n pasted misunderstandings by the biblicaly illiterate critics. i want you guys to find contradictions on your own instead of repeating someone elses. Yes we know to the day and hour when jesus was born and died. biblicaly and secular writtings agree. Dr missler is a historian and mathematical wiz. He's wrong about a lot but not this. as for the validity of the fulfilled prophecies of jesus, less evidence is required in court today to prove a fact than back then. if the thousands of witnessess of jesus miracles from the bible testified in court today, the judge would declare jesus messiah. even those who never believed he was messiah absolutely believed in his miracles. every pharasee and every nay sayer never questioned his power. they question where he got the power. the talmud, written by those who hated jesus, admit his supernatural power. every miracle in the gospel is backed as fact in talmud. it happened

long pig

sure digi. have at it. but as soon as you start saying it's all a big conspiracy by the church then stop. there are only two possibilities when it comes to the messiah. either jesus, who did everything the messiah was to do, was the messiah. or there is on such thing as a messiah meaning the whole bible is false. and since one can prove with 100% accuracy the bible isn't all false, we have no choice but to say jesus was messiah.

long pig

no there is a third option actually. jesus may have been the great false messiah prophet. its a good study cuz the only human to fulfill every single thing that the false messiah was said to e was jesus.

Darth Piggott

Jesus may have been an alien, and so could all the ancient G-ds. You never know> wacko

red g jacks

Originally posted by long pig
so we finally admit, the highly touted contradictions aren't contradictions, they are just copy n pasted misunderstandings by the biblicaly illiterate critics. i want you guys to find contradictions on your own instead of repeating someone elses. Yes we know to the day and hour when jesus was born and died. biblicaly and secular writtings agree. Dr missler is a historian and mathematical wiz. He's wrong about a lot but not this. as for the validity of the fulfilled prophecies of jesus, less evidence is required in court today to prove a fact than back then. if the thousands of witnessess of jesus miracles from the bible testified in court today, the judge would declare jesus messiah. even those who never believed he was messiah absolutely believed in his miracles. every pharasee and every nay sayer never questioned his power. they question where he got the power. the talmud, written by those who hated jesus, admit his supernatural power. every miracle in the gospel is backed as fact in talmud. it happened never once did i put forth the claim that they were contradictions. they're 'prophecies' which christians claim jesus fulfilled. i think you saw the word 'contradiction' on the picture in the 4th vid and got excited.

since you're apparently a biblical scholar, why don't you put this to rest and list a few ofthe prophecies that you personally feel prove he was the legitimate messiah, with the scriptures to back it up. i'm not interested in hearing about all the supposed eye witnesses who are now dead.

Darth Truculent

Zigi I'm back my fun debatable friend, I didn't major in science and I don't claim to be all knowing in the scientific department.

However, I did major in history. I took several Biblical courses and discovered that what the Old Testament Prophets foretold came to pass. Jesus was of the royal Davidic line and the Jewish people were looking for a warrior Messiah, not a pacifist who chose to sacrifice himself. Jesus was of the Davidic line and crap that He had a kid is totally absurd. Even Islam states that Jesus will return on the Day of Judgment. In the Book of Revelation many of the prophecies are beginning to pass.

What you believe is based on faith. You have faith in the morning that your car will start and take you to work. You place your faith that our country will be protected by the brave military. Back to the theory of evolution - can you please tell what species are evolving right now? You try to back it up with scientific evidence, but there is none to support it. Why aren't more big bangs happening? Science wants to see proof that something exists. I can't remember the exact person who said this, but I quote:

"I see God through nature"

inimalist

ping:

can you post a citation of the paper determining the probability of a messiah? I'm interested in some methodological stuff

thx

TacDavey

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
Jesus may have been an alien, and so could all the ancient G-ds. You never know> wacko

Totally a possibility. Don't think it's backed by any evidence though... confused

Originally posted by Digi
Actually, it doesn't dictate that at all. Do I really need to explain to you other possible explanations, all of them more likely than the Bible being true?

If you want to make your point, yes. Don't just leave it at that and expect everyone to just accept it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
never once did i put forth the claim that they were contradictions. they're 'prophecies' which christians claim jesus fulfilled. i think you saw the word 'contradiction' on the picture in the 4th vid and got excited.

since you're apparently a biblical scholar, why don't you put this to rest and list a few ofthe prophecies that you personally feel prove he was the legitimate messiah, with the scriptures to back it up. i'm not interested in hearing about all the supposed eye witnesses who are now dead.

Ahem... Just because the eye witnesses are dead, doesn't make their testimony any less valid you know...

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ahem... Just because the eye witnesses are dead, doesn't make their testimony any less valid you know...

you agree that it is as valid as any eyewitness testimony though?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
you agree that it is as valid as any eyewitness testimony though?

Well, unless someone can give reasons why not.

Really, I haven't done much research into this particular point, so I wouldn't be able to have a back and forth debate over it. But the fact that the eye witnesses are now dead is not grounds on it's own to dismiss their testimony.

inimalist

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but if eyewitness testimony is considered useless in most fields, including law, would you agree that it is useless here too?

EDIT: ignore the law thing, I wont be arguing the position from legal precedence

Eye witness is considered useless in most fields? I find that hard to believe. People are used all the time to identify criminals.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Eye witness is considered useless in most fields? I find that hard to believe. People are used all the time to identify criminals.

they might be, but their ability to do so is much worse than is commonly assumed.

people's perceptions are notoriously unreliable, and courts do tend to take this into account. Eye-witness testimony is not seen as convincing as physical evidence, in theory (a good lawyer trumps all that though, especially in jury trials).

With no physical evidence, use of eye witness data is essentially worthless. you are assuming near omniscience and objectivity in your witnesses, and even then, all you can conclude is that something appeared to have happened, filtered through the knowingly faulty and limited human perceptual apparati.

EDIT: come to think of it, the only field where raw eyewitness data is used to try and conclude things is law, and even then, it is considered one of the least reliable types of evidence. In a subject like psychology, researchers make names for themselves by showing how poor human perception is.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Eye witness is considered useless in most fields?

Do you recognize this image?
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/7/8/29878.jpg?v=1

Guy standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen square, as the tanks rolled in to break up the massive demonstrations there. If I hadn't shown you that image, you probably could have drawn it from memory. The line of tanks, the lone guy who had emerged from the crowd to oppose them, etc.

. . .

Except that most of that isn't true. There were no other demonstrators in the area when that picture was taken. They've been edited in by a computer. Despite it being a famous image most people are still easily fooled into recalling a new version of what happened.

. . .

There are all kinds of similar errors that the human mind can make.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I find that hard to believe. People are used all the time to identify criminals.

For two main reasons:
1) Anecdotes have strong emotional resonance. Lawyers love being able to humanize a story.
2) Evidence can be hard to find. But consider that when there isn't any other evidence it's called a "he said, she said" trial. One where you can't come to a conclusion because the only thing you have is witnesses and witnesses can lie, be deceived, and make mistakes.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
they might be, but their ability to do so is much worse than is commonly assumed.

people's perceptions are notoriously unreliable, and courts do tend to take this into account. Eye-witness testimony is not seen as convincing as physical evidence, in theory (a good lawyer trumps all that though, especially in jury trials).

With no physical evidence, use of eye witness data is essentially worthless. you are assuming near omniscience and objectivity in your witnesses, and even then, all you can conclude is that something appeared to have happened, filtered through the knowingly faulty and limited human perceptual apparati.

EDIT: come to think of it, the only field where raw eyewitness data is used to try and conclude things is law, and even then, it is considered one of the least reliable types of evidence. In a subject like psychology, researchers make names for themselves by showing how poor human perception is.

Ah, well of course if it's just one or two eye witnesses that wouldn't hold ground. And like I said I haven't heavily researched it, but as I hear it, it's well over 500 eye witnesses and some of them were unbelievers and some were put in prison for saying it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you recognize this image?
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/7/8/29878.jpg?v=1

Guy standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen square, as the tanks rolled in to break up the massive demonstrations there. If I hadn't shown you that image, you probably could have drawn it from memory. The line of tanks, the lone guy who had emerged from the crowd to oppose them, etc.

. . .

Except that most of that isn't true. There were no other demonstrators in the area when that picture was taken. They've been edited in by a computer. Despite it being a famous image most people are still easily fooled into recalling a new version of what happened.

. . .

There are all kinds of similar errors that the human mind can make.

For two main reasons:
1) Anecdotes have strong emotional resonance. Lawyers love being able to humanize a story.
2) Evidence can be hard to find. But consider that when there isn't any other evidence it's called a "he said, she said" trial. One where you can't come to a conclusion because the only thing you have is witnesses and witnesses can lie, be deceived, and make mistakes.

Actually, I didn't recognize the image, but I get what your saying.

It's possible that every eye witness was simply mistaken or convinced, but like I said above, as I hear it it was more than a one or two people, and it was more than believers.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ah, well of course if it's just one or two eye witnesses that wouldn't hold ground. And like I said I haven't heavily researched it, but as I hear it, it's well over 500 eye witnesses and some of them were unbelievers and some were put in prison for saying it.

so the best argument you can say is: 500 people believe they experienced something for which there is little if any physical evidence.

there are additional levels of skepticism here, such as the motivations, cognitive schema and personalities of the observers, things like covariance in responses (do we know these people weren't influenced by other people at the event, or after), false memory, social pressure, etc, and yes, them being dead does make the data less useful, because someone who isn't satisfied with the data cannot corroborate or refute it. We simply have to decide whether we think the witnesses were right or wrong, and that is essentially based on our own beliefs about what is possible.

If your threshold for believing something is true is "a lot of people might have saw something", do you realize how many crazy things you have to accept as true? Like, fine, you want to apply this to Jesus, you do know EVERY religious figure from history has such things. Testimony of seeing angels fight alongside Mohammed, for instance. Or cults. Scientologists experience very similar things with regards to thetans and engrams, does that experience alone convince you these things are real?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
so the best argument you can say is: 500 people believe they experienced something for which there is little if any physical evidence.

there are additional levels of skepticism here, such as the motivations, cognitive schema and personalities of the observers, things like covariance in responses (do we know these people weren't influenced by other people at the event, or after), false memory, social pressure, etc, and yes, them being dead does make the data less useful, because someone who isn't satisfied with the data cannot corroborate or refute it. We simply have to decide whether we think the witnesses were right or wrong, and that is essentially based on our own beliefs about what is possible.

If your threshold for believing something is true is "a lot of people might have saw something", do you realize how many crazy things you have to accept as true? Like, fine, you want to apply this to Jesus, you do know EVERY religious figure from history has such things. Testimony of seeing angels fight alongside Mohammed, for instance. Or cults. Scientologists experience very similar things with regards to thetans and engrams, does that experience alone convince you these things are real?

I never said these eye witnesses ALONE convinced me. But it adds to it when a vast amount of people, some who were imprisoned for saying it, held this to be true. Why go to jail for a lie? Especially those who weren't even believers.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said these eye witnesses ALONE convinced me. But it adds to it when a vast amount of people, some who were imprisoned for saying it, held this to be true. Why go to jail for a lie? Especially those who weren't even believers.

I'm not saying they were liars

EDIT: one can be convinced of something, through their limited senses, that is not absolutely true. sensory illusions are a great example of this. Because of how the touch receptors are spread out over your arm, I can touch you with two objects and you would never experience the sensation of more than one. The fact that you might go to jail over believing there was only one says nothing about how many objects you were touched with.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's possible that every eye witness was simply mistaken or convinced, but like I said above, as I hear it it was more than a one or two people, and it was more than believers.

Ever heard of urban legends or even Poe's Law? Large numbers of people are constantly convinced of things that are blatantly untrue or meant to be impossible to believe.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not saying they were liars

EDIT: one can be convinced of something, through their limited senses, that is not absolutely true. sensory illusions are a great example of this. Because of how the touch receptors are spread out over your arm, I can touch you with two objects and you would never experience the sensation of more than one. The fact that you might go to jail over believing there was only one says nothing about how many objects you were touched with.

I agree people can be tricked into thinking something, but its still incredible that there were so many. I think it's rather unlikely that that many people were just mistaken. At any rate, my original point was that you can't just pass off eye witness testimony because the person is dead. That doesn't sound logical to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever heard of urban legends or even Poe's Law? Large numbers of people are constantly convinced of things that are blatantly untrue or meant to be impossible to believe.

I've heard of Urban Legends. I don't know what Poe's Law is. I've not heard people go to jail over an urban legend. But if there was that many people saying something and some where even going to prison for it. I would think it is at least worth a look into. If you can disprove what they are saying then there it is. As far as I know, Christianity hasn't been refuted as of yet. But that's another discussion entirely.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard of Urban Legends. I don't know what Poe's Law is. I've not heard people go to jail over an urban legend. But if there was that many people saying something and some where even going to prison for it. I would think it is at least worth a look into.

Are you seriously arguing that people being really sure of something is reason to believe that it's true?

Originally posted by TacDavey
If you can disprove what they are saying then there it is. As far as I know, Christianity hasn't been refuted as of yet.

Christianity has yet to be proven in the first place.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
I agree people can be tricked into thinking something, but its still incredible that there were so many. I think it's rather unlikely that that many people were just mistaken.

do you extend this to people who believe they have been abducted by aliens? people who believe they have psychic powers? what about modern "prophets" who have thousands of followers who report seeing them perform miracles?

why would these eye-witnesses be any different. if we accept eye witness testimony from the bible is true, you have no reason to suggest these are not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
At any rate, my original point was that you can't just pass off eye witness testimony because the person is dead. That doesn't sound logical to me.

well, as I said before, there are numerous reasons why testimony from living people is superior to that of dead people, but even if we assume you are right for the sake of argument, being "as good as living eyewitnesses" is not a very good standard anyways. it is no better than a story a friend tells you about a guy

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you seriously arguing that people being really sure of something is reason to believe that it's true?

No. I thought I was very clear that was NOT what I was saying. But if all we knew about something was that there were a vast group of people who claim to have seen it, and even some who were unbelievers and went to jail for it, then it becomes more logical to believe in such a thing than it was without them. It ADDS to it, I never said that alone was all you even need to prove that something is true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Christianity has yet to be proven in the first place.

That's rather irrelevant to what I was saying.

inimalist

does the fact that Jewish people were burned for their beliefs make it any more true? does the faith of those in concentration camps mean Judaism is true?

what about Muslims in guantanamo?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
do you extend this to people who believe they have been abducted by aliens? people who believe they have psychic powers? what about modern "prophets" who have thousands of followers who report seeing them perform miracles?

why would these eye-witnesses be any different. if we accept eye witness testimony from the bible is true, you have no reason to suggest these are not.

Well, there are some reasons. There are reasons to believe that aliens and those prophets are false. If it could be debated adequately that both of those things are true, then such eye witnesses would only strengthen their case. Like I said, it adds to it, but doesn't fully prove anything. I disregard eye witness accounts of aliens and psychics not simply because they are eye witness accounts, but because it has basically been proven that both of those things are fake. The same cannot be said of Christianity.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, as I said before, there are numerous reasons why testimony from living people is superior to that of dead people, but even if we assume you are right for the sake of argument, being "as good as living eyewitnesses" is not a very good standard anyways. it is no better than a story a friend tells you about a guy

I fully agree that a living person would be a better witness to your cause than a dead one. But we don't have any living ones. And the fact that there is the possibility for a better piece of evidence does not discredit the evidence that we have.

Let me try and explain that better.

Say you have evidence for the existence of fairies. A better piece of evidence would be actually faeries showing up to the person you are debating and saying "I exist". But that doesn't mean all the evidence you have compiled is meaningless simply because that would be better than what you have.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. I thought I was very clear that was NOT what I was saying. But if all we knew about something was that there were a vast group of people who claim to have seen it, and even some who were unbelievers and went to jail for it, then it becomes more logical to believe in such a thing than it was without them. It ADDS to it, I never said that alone was all you even need to prove that something is true.

Okay, it's a reason to look into it but that's where the relevance ends. So who cares?

The only reason I can see for you to push this point (besides thinking it is evidence in and of itself) is that you believe I haven't put thought into my beliefs. Frankly, that offends me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's rather irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it's not. You said "Christianity hasn't been disproven" but why should anybody have to disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Otherwise we'd have to laboriously disprove any claim anyone ever made no matter how crazy. That's not a reasonable way to live.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, it's a reason to look into it but that's where the relevance ends. So who cares?

The only reason I can see for you to push this point (besides thinking it is evidence in and of itself) is that you believe I haven't put thought into my beliefs. Frankly, that offends me.

That's not what I was saying at all.

Let me try and put it another way. If a man put a gun to your head and asked you a simple question: "Does X exist?" (X being a place holder, not the letter before you decide to say something clever).

Now, say you know absolutely nothing about X. You wouldn't know one way or the other.

Now let's modify the situation. Say that there were over 500 people from all over who have not met each other and some who were going to jail for saying that X does, in fact exist. Also take into account that some of these witnesses were previously unbelievers in X.

NOW, what is your decision? Does that prove X exists? No. Does it make it more likelier than it was before? Yes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it's not. You said "Christianity hasn't been disproven" but why should anybody have to disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Otherwise we'd have to laboriously disprove any claim anyone ever made no matter how crazy. That's not a reasonable way to live.

Well, some would argue that point, but like I said that's another topic completely.

My point is that Christianity hasn't been shown to absolutely be untrue. It's still debatable. Aliens and psychics, as far as I'm concerned, are not the same in that respect.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Now let's modify the situation. Say that there were over 500 people from all over who have not met each other and some who were going to jail for saying that X does, in fact exist. Also take into account that some of these witnesses were previously unbelievers in X.

that is entirely historically inaccurate though. The people who spoke of Jesus came from a community that met and discussed with eachother, and if the Bible is to be taken as truth, Jesus was a pretty talked about guy at the time. It is unfathomable that these eye-witnesses wouldn't have known and talked amongst one-another. You can't control these things entirely in well designed social psychology experiments ffs.

I already covered your jail analogy too

Originally posted by TacDavey
My point is that Christianity hasn't been shown to absolutely be untrue. It's still debatable. Aliens and psychics, as far as I'm concerned, are not the same in that respect.

thats not true at all

in an absolute sense, none of those things can be "disproven", they can only have evidence brought up to support or refute them.

Given christianity brings no real evidence to the table (as, in fact, psychics HAVE done, it is just weak evidence), it is hard to refute it.

"A guy told me" is not evidence, no matter how much it supports what you believe

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, there are some reasons. There are reasons to believe that aliens and those prophets are false. If it could be debated adequately that both of those things are true, then such eye witnesses would only strengthen their case. Like I said, it adds to it, but doesn't fully prove anything. I disregard eye witness accounts of aliens and psychics not simply because they are eye witness accounts, but because it has basically been proven that both of those things are fake. The same cannot be said of Christianity.

that is the definition of special pleading. also, try bringing up this "psy is totally disproven" with deadline. tbh, there is a far better argument, in empirical terms, for psychic powers than there is for any aspect of Christianity.

This is moot though. you are considering what is the same type of evidence as more convincing because it falls in line with your preconcieved notions of what is true, rather than evaluating it with the same critical eye you give to other things.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I fully agree that a living person would be a better witness to your cause than a dead one. But we don't have any living ones. And the fact that there is the possibility for a better piece of evidence does not discredit the evidence that we have.

you are correct, eye-witness evidence discredits itself

Originally posted by TacDavey
Say you have evidence for the existence of fairies. A better piece of evidence would be actually faeries showing up to the person you are debating and saying "I exist". But that doesn't mean all the evidence you have compiled is meaningless simply because that would be better than what you have.

If someone told you "500 people think they saw a fairy", you would believe in faries?

in fact, i am telling you this, no word of a lie, in all seriousness, over 500 people think they have seen faries. Hell, I bet I could find 500 people who think they are faries.

and yes, I do think the evidence is meaningless. Fault me for having a high standard of evidence for things if you want, at least I'm consistant.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, unless someone can give reasons why not.

Really, I haven't done much research into this particular point, so I wouldn't be able to have a back and forth debate over it. But the fact that the eye witnesses are now dead is not grounds on it's own to dismiss their testimony. my reason is mostly that they're not here to give their testimony. i guess if there's a written account from each of these eye witnesses that can somehow be verified as the legitimate testimonies of those who lived in the time of jesus, then i'd consider it as valid as any other eyewitness testimony, which as inimalist rightfully pointed out, isn't actually very concrete as far as evidence goes. jesus could have simply been skillful in the art of deception, for all we know.

but just saying "there were tons of eye witnesses" doesn't really do anything for me. i could say there were tons of eye witnesses who saw allah protect the kabah from an invasive force in the 'year of the elephant,' yet i doubt you'd accept that as a documented factual event.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
that is entirely historically inaccurate though. The people who spoke of Jesus came from a community that met and discussed with eachother, and if the Bible is to be taken as truth, Jesus was a pretty talked about guy at the time. It is unfathomable that these eye-witnesses wouldn't have known and talked amongst one-another. You can't control these things entirely in well designed social psychology experiments ffs.

Like I said, I'm not that well researched, but as I heard it they weren't all from a selected group. Indeed, there were many people from all over claiming the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not true at all

in an absolute sense, none of those things can be "disproven", they can only have evidence brought up to support or refute them.

Given christianity brings no real evidence to the table (as, in fact, psychics HAVE done, it is just weak evidence), it is hard to refute it.

"A guy told me" is not evidence, no matter how much it supports what you believe

Like I said, the evidence supporting Christianity is another topic all together. I disagree that there is no evidence supporting it, but that isn't really important to the point I was making here.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is the definition of special pleading. also, try bringing up this "psy is totally disproven" with deadline. tbh, there is a far better argument, in empirical terms, for psychic powers than there is for any aspect of Christianity.

This is moot though. you are considering what is the same type of evidence as more convincing because it falls in line with your preconcieved notions of what is true, rather than evaluating it with the same critical eye you give to other things.

No I'm not. The eye witness testimonies of UFOs have the same weight as Jesus's Eye witness testimonies. The difference is that as I have seen it UFOs and psychics have been pretty well proven false. Christianity has not.

Like if there was a debate about Big Foot and Aliens. And lets say we all knew for a fact that aliens weren't true, but we were still deciding if Big Foot was. Eye witness reports on aliens can be ignored, where as they are still valid for Big Foot.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are correct, eye-witness evidence discredits itself

I disagree. I already gave you a hypothetical in which eye witness reports would directly influence your decision. They do not prove anything. I have never said they did. But to say they have absolutely 0% impact on a subject is just untrue.

Originally posted by inimalist
If someone told you "500 people think they saw a fairy", you would believe in faries?

in fact, i am telling you this, no word of a lie, in all seriousness, over 500 people think they have seen faries. Hell, I bet I could find 500 people who think they are faries.

No, I have been over this many times now. I don't understand where you are still getting confused. Eye witness reports alone don't prove anything. I have said this in post after post after post. Why are you so intent on labeling this as my argument? Eye witness reports alone do not prove anything. But you are claiming they have absolutely 0 relation to a subject and I am saying that is simply not true.

However small their contribution, they DO contribute.

Originally posted by inimalist
and yes, I do think the evidence is meaningless. Fault me for having a high standard of evidence for things if you want, at least I'm consistant.

What do you mean? The fact that there is the possibility for better evidence doesn't discredit the other evidence. It's still evidence. Otherwise, you could say ANYTHING we have not seen is meaningless, because the best evidence for it would be to see it ourselves, and since there is the possibility for that evidence, that means all the evidence we DO have is meaningless.

But we all know that isn't true at all.

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
my reason is mostly that they're not here to give their testimony. i guess if there's a written account from each of these eye witnesses that can somehow be verified as the legitimate testimonies of those who lived in the time of jesus, then i'd consider it as valid as any other eyewitness testimony, which as inimalist rightfully pointed out, isn't actually very concrete as far as evidence goes. jesus could have simply been skillful in the art of deception, for all we know.

but just saying "there were tons of eye witnesses" doesn't really do anything for me. i could say there were tons of eye witnesses who saw allah protect the kabah from an invasive force in the 'year of the elephant,' yet i doubt you'd accept that as a documented factual event.

Exactly. Providing the documentation of those eye witness reports is the job of the guy who originally brought it up. I'm just saying they aren't meaningless.

inimalist

aren't anymore meaningless than normal eyewitness evidence wink

Digi

Darth Truculent - If you actually think there's no evidence for evolution, we simply can't have this discussion. Your questions of evolution and requests for particular evidence also presuppose misconceptions about the nature of evolution itself, which invalidate the questions. Such as the actively evolving species question, which suggests ignorance of the timescale evolution works on. You're going to have to show me that you have a basic understanding of evolution and what constitutes evidence for it before we continue.

Same with the Big Bang question, which is patently absurd.

Anyway, as to your fulfilled prophecies, postdiction is a lovely thing. Besides, all prophecies are themselves on interpretation and can be fit to the original by applying selective bias. Give me predictive power, as science does, not post-dictive (sic) power, and I will be impressed.

And appealing to Nature as a proof for God only worked until we knew the mechanisms by which the universe exists. We know how planets and galaxies formed, we know how life evolved, we have incomplete but powerfully accurate models of physics, we have mathematically feasible means by which the universe itself came to be, all backed by mountains of evidence. This is not faith, it is fact. Nature is amazing. It is not proof of God.

...

Long pig also addressed me, and I haven't forgotten you bud. I just continue to be unable to reconcile your current posts with your "former" self on KMC. What happened? Because I always have the urge to think you're just trolling for sh*ts and giggles, but if it is you've been very persistent.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
aren't anymore meaningless than normal eyewitness evidence wink

sly Hmmm... Sir, are implying that eye witness reports are meaningless?

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
sly Hmmm... Sir, are implying that eye witness reports are meaningless?

I'm not implying, if you are really interested I can show you the studies to prove it

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not implying, if you are really interested I can show you the studies to prove it

Please do.

Deja~vu

If Hell is not a real place since Jesus was only talking symbolically, then what is there to save you from?? So no, Jesus isn't the Messiah, in a real since, that you must believe and that he forgave you for your sins in order to save you from a false place.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If Hell is not a real place since Jesus was only talking symbolically, then what is there to save you from?? So no, Jesus isn't the Messiah, in a real since, that you must believe and that he forgave you for your sins in order to save you from a false place.

Where are you getting that hell isn't real? Where are you getting that you don't need to believe in Jesus?

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Where are you getting that you don't need to believe in Jesus?

so good non-believers still go to hell?

red g jacks

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
so good non-believers still go to hell?

Yes. You don't get into heaven on works alone.

long pig

you cant fault jesus for not video taping his miracles. That is basically what you are doing. If for the sake of argument lets say every thing the bible says jesus did is true. It would be documented the same way it is now. Its the only way it could have been documented. There weren't 500 independant witnessess, it was 5000. None of which were christian. Ask yourself why the jews of the first century, who not only thought jesus was a liar, but hated the man. Why would they mention in their most holy document that he indeed existed, did miracles, did die on the cross and did rise from the dead. They, along with the roman government conferms the entire gospel. Were they all lying about the same thing, at the same time, independantly against their own interests for no reason? its absurd. History and archeology agree with 90% of the bible. From abraham to jesus is provable. Before that, not so much. I don't know what more you want other than seeing for yourself. Which is the only thing you can't have.

inimalist

physical evidence, lulz

red g jacks

Originally posted by long pig
Why would they mention in their most holy document that he indeed existed, did miracles, did die on the cross and did rise from the dead. They, along with the roman government conferms the entire gospel. interesting. source?

red g jacks

found this, with a quick google search:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html

Deja~vu

Originally posted by red g jacks
what makes you say he was speaking symbolically? Jesus was always speaking in "Stories" to symbolise his messages. He was speaking in parables and when he was talking about Hell and referring to Gehenna, it was a real garbage dump right outside the city. All of the other references to Hell in the original language never meant a place you could go to once you die. It literally meant "death or the grave." The Jews, who wrote down the scriptures, didn't believe in Hell, so why would they write about such a place that they didn't believe in? Hell is a concept taken from other religions that were around at the time, such as the Greeks and Romans along with others. Also, there was a well known historian that lived at the same time and if anyone would have documented that Jesus was the Messiah, it would have been him. Read through the works of Josephus. Don't you think that Jesus being the long and awaited for Messiah would have at least ONE full page about it? At least ONE sentence?

It should also be noted, if you didn't already know, that there were hundreds of texts floating around and gathered by the Catholic Church , but only certain ones were kept while others were considered false. Why is that? And who gave themselves the authority to make such a decision? Why not the Gnostic versions?

Spoken by Paul the Heathen. Of course Jesus taught that works were important. It's a mans heart that is looked at.

What a sad view that evil people that call themselves believers get a free pass through the Pearly Gates, while good-hearted, others across the world along with little babies all get to spend eternity in Hell. Not even a parent, who is only human, would initiate such a penalty.

Imagine burning little children for all eternity. Is that just??

TacDavey

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Jesus was always speaking in "Stories" to symbolise his messages. He was speaking in parables and when he was talking about Hell and referring to Gehenna, it was a real garbage dump right outside the city. All of the other references to Hell in the original language never meant a place you could go to once you die. It literally meant "death or the grave." The Jews, who wrote down the scriptures, didn't believe in Hell, so why would they write about such a place that they didn't believe in? Hell is a concept taken from other religions that were around at the time, such as the Greeks and Romans along with others. Also, there was a well known historian that lived at the same time and if anyone would have documented that Jesus was the Messiah, it would have been him. Read through the works of Josephus. Don't you think that Jesus being the long and awaited for Messiah would have at least ONE full page about it? At least ONE sentence?

It should also be noted, if you didn't already know, that there were hundreds of texts floating around and gathered by the Catholic Church , but only certain ones were kept while others were considered false. Why is that? And who gave themselves the authority to make such a decision? Why not the Gnostic versions?

Jesus spoke in parables sometimes, yes, but not EVERY thing He said wasn't suppose to be taken literally.

I don't know exactly how they figured out what was canon and what wasn't for the Bible, but there WAS a formula. We learned about it in Spiritual Growth but I didn't pay much attention.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
by Paul the Heathen. Of course Jesus taught that works were important. It's a mans heart that is looked at.

What a sad view that evil people that call themselves believers get a free pass through the Pearly Gates, while good-hearted, others across the world along with little babies all get to spend eternity in Hell. Not even a parent, who is only human, would initiate such a penalty.

Imagine burning little children for all eternity. Is that just??

You are assuming an awful lot that isn't, at all, stated. Before jumping all over someone make sure you have a good idea of their stance.

I never said works were completely unimportant. I said you don't get into heaven on works ALONE. A person can be a real nice guy, but that by itself won't get you into heaven. That being said, if you go around killing children and still believe in God, that won't get you in either.

Also, it is the Catholics that believe a child goes to hell if they die. I am not Catholic, and do not share that ideal. It isn't until someone reaches the age where they can know right from wrong and think for themselves that they are held accountable for their sins.

red g jacks

yea i had a feeling that is what you were referring to but i wasn't sure. i asked because i coincidentally was told the same thing by a christian recently, that gehenna (would have actually been gehinnom in jesus time, gehenna is the greek translation) was a literal waste dump in israel where dead bodies were burned and that all of the verses about hellfire actually used this word and were referring only to a final death, a separation from god. this is honestly preferable to me compared to the more common interpretation of hell, but other christians i've talked to suggest that gehenna was being used as a metaphor for a really nasty place (its also a place where children were apparently sacrificed to various gods) to symbolize a literal hell and a torturous afterlife.

i'd love to say they're wrong but it's hard to contradict that view with verses like these:

Matthew 10:28 (King James Version)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mark 9:43 (King James Version)
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

sort of sounds compatible with the 'separation from god' interpretation, except for the reference to unquenchable fire

Darth Truculent

I'm back Zigi . . .

Long pig makes a very valid point about video documentation. Many historical records from the Roman Empire have confirmed Jesus's miracles. When a powerful culture like the Roman Empire documents this, it cannot be disproven. In the Old Testament when the Jewish Nation finally left Egypt, God's plagues were documented. Those are historical evidence left behind.

When Jesus was crucified, the heavy velvet in the Temple was split in two and this was documented as well. Paul was known as the Chief Enforcer of slaughtering early Christians - the very first Darth Vader. It was documented again by the Roman Empire that he was converted by God himself.

As to your prophecy question - ever hear of the Four Horsemen? It can be argued that the first three are already here: whispers of war (Afghanistan & Iraq), plagues (Bird Flu & AIDS) and strange weather (ie Global Warming).

As to science's evidence - something cannot be created without being created itself. For example, how do you create a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon can't create itself. It has be carefully assembled by man. So how was the universe created and the galaxies?

Counter argument?

inimalist

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
As to science's evidence - something cannot be created without being created itself. For example, how do you create a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon can't create itself. It has be carefully assembled by man. So how was the universe created and the galaxies?

Counter argument?

lulz, how was the creator created /sigh

Darth Truculent

inimalist,

"I am the Alpha, The Omega, The Beginning & The End" - God

God has always existed - Judiasm, Islam & Christianty, three of the world's great religions all say the same thing. God has always existed. He is not some figmantation of human imagination. Miracles cannot be disproven such as Cancer disappearing overnight (which has happened in some cases and doctors can't explain it). The congresswoman who was shot in the head by that wackjob in Arizona should be dead, but she is walking and talking. A 9mm round at point blank range should have killed her, but God spared her life for a purpose only He knows.

It is a good question inimalist, but it is far to complicated for man to understand. The Trinity - God, The Father & The Son are all the same. Even the most knowledgeable scholar in religion cannot fathom It.

inimalist

so, special pleading then?

red g jacks

Mindship

What is Christianity's understanding of why the Jewish people believe that Jesus was not the messiah?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
lulz, how was the creator created /sigh

Originally posted by inimalist
so, special pleading then?

No, not at all. The creator of the universe is eternal. Outside of time. As the other guy said, this means He does not require a creator.

Whatever made the universe must be eternal, since modern cosmology has found that time itself came into existence at the Big Bang. So whatever made the universe must have been outside of time, I.E. eternal.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, not at all. The creator of the universe is eternal. Outside of time. As the other guy said, this means He does not require a creator.

Whatever made the universe must be eternal, since modern cosmology has found that time itself came into existence at the Big Bang. So whatever made the universe must have been outside of time, I.E. eternal.

well, ok, but then you are introducing a law of "things outside of time need no creator", which is both absurd and non-falsifiable /shrug

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
well, ok, but then you are introducing a law of "things outside of time need no creator", which is both absurd and non-falsifiable /shrug

How so? To say something outside of time needs a creator demands that it have a beginning. But if something has a beginning, then it is inside of time. Being outside of time (eternal) means that there is no beginning nor end. Thus, it not only needs no creator, it CANNOT have one.

inimalist

thats terrible logic

you are claiming things about a being which you are defining as unknowable

EDIT: your point still doesn't refute the idea that this is special pleading either. If you define everything that happened before the big bang as being outside of time , the the creation of the universe happened outside of time, because time was a product of that creation (by definition, not created within time) and could thus, by the same logic you use with god, require no creator

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
thats terrible logic

you are claiming things about a being which you are defining as unknowable

EDIT: your point still doesn't refute the idea that this is special pleading either. If you define everything that happened before the big bang as being outside of time , the the creation of the universe happened outside of time, because time was a product of that creation (by definition, not created within time) and could thus, by the same logic you use with god, require no creator

No, that's not right. It should never be suggested that we can know NOTHING about God. The Bible, for example, tells us lots of things about Him.

I'm glad you brought that up, actually.

There is only two options for what could have caused the universe.

1.) A powerful being with the will and means to create one (God)

or

2.) An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe. (Everything else)

But it can't be two. Whenever you get all the necessary and sufficient conditions for an event to happen, it will always happen.

For example, the conditions for a spark might be heat, friction, etc etc. Once all those conditions are met, a spark will always take place.

But it you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causily prior to the universes creation that the conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. And this is logically impossible. You are basically claiming that an eternal set of conditions created a temporal effect.

Thus, it has to be 1. A being with the means to create a universe, and the will to create or not create it.

inimalist

...

I dont understand why 2 is not congruent with an existant universe?

Its like you are saying that God is responsible for the freezing of water, but it could never be possible that water under 0 degrees celcius could not be frozen...

Robtard

LoLz, I always like the "it's outside our ability to fully understand, so God must have done it" arguments.

Could have very well been an undefined and unexplained amount of matter and/or energy without a will of its own and it just happened. Not cos it wanted or needed; just did.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Robtard
LoLz, I always like the "it's outside our ability to fully understand, so God must have done it" arguments.

Could have very well been an undefined and unexplained amount of matter and/or energy without a will of its own and it just happened. Not cos it wanted or needed; just did.

Actually, my last post was meant to show how that was impossible, but I guess I need to explain it better.

Originally posted by inimalist
...

I dont understand why 2 is not congruent with an existant universe?

Its like you are saying that God is responsible for the freezing of water, but it could never be possible that water under 0 degrees celcius could not be frozen...

I don't get the water example...

If the universe has a beginning, then that means that there had to have been a point causily prior to it's existence that it didn't exist, right?

But whatever created it had to be eternal, right?

That means that if the necessary conditions for it's creation were eternal, then the universe has to be eternal. Otherwise, you have to face the fact that you would be saying that there was a point causily prior to the universes existence that it did not exist, yet the necessary conditions for it's existence did (Since they are eternal). Which is logically impossible. That's why it can't be 2. And if it can't be 2, it has to be 1.

red g jacks

i think where you've gone wrong is by getting hung up on the idea that whatever was around prior to the big bang had to be 'eternal.' time as we know it may have been created in the big bang but that doesn't necessarily suggest anything final about the state prior to. its possible that something could have existed prior to and leading up to the state of singularity, like the universe could have already been created, expanded, and collapsed back in on itself in an infinite regression. or maybe the universe exists in one corner of a larger multiverse and our version of time/space/existence is just one of many. you're setting the standard that 'whatever created time had to be eternal' based on what is essentially philosophical mysticism rather than any actual limitation of time itself.

inimalist

indeed

I dont see how something existing before the big bang eliminates causality...

Grate the Vraya

So if It is some eternal being who grants miracles to people for no reason at all, why do people worship him? It doesn't increase their chances of getting a miracle.

Digi

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I'm back Zigi . . .

Long pig makes a very valid point about video documentation. Many historical records from the Roman Empire have confirmed Jesus's miracles. When a powerful culture like the Roman Empire documents this, it cannot be disproven. In the Old Testament when the Jewish Nation finally left Egypt, God's plagues were documented. Those are historical evidence left behind.

When Jesus was crucified, the heavy velvet in the Temple was split in two and this was documented as well. Paul was known as the Chief Enforcer of slaughtering early Christians - the very first Darth Vader. It was documented again by the Roman Empire that he was converted by God himself.

So you presume to know exactly what facts are and aren't verifiable about the historical life of Jesus? Have you actually researched this with scholarship or reading valid scholarship on the topic, or are you parroting a few facts that sound true to you?

The short version is, we have enough evidence to reliably claim that Jesus existed, and not nearly enough to confirm anything extranormal about his life and ministry. Claiming otherwise is simply false, and therefore an article of blind faith is involved in believing in his divinity. And, coming from a scientifically illiterate culture with numerous savior and miracle myths already swirling around in it, it's little wonder tha one of them eventually caught on and became bigger than the others.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
As to your prophecy question - ever hear of the Four Horsemen? It can be argued that the first three are already here: whispers of war (Afghanistan & Iraq), plagues (Bird Flu & AIDS) and strange weather (ie Global Warming).

Far worse wars have happened all throughout history, same with plagues, and you're grasping at straws. Again, science gives us verifiable predictive power. You're giving me vague statements to shoehorn events to your beliefs.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
As to science's evidence - something cannot be created without being created itself. For example, how do you create a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon can't create itself. It has be carefully assembled by man. So how was the universe created and the galaxies?

I'm not a middle school textbook. You're not versed enough on these topics to question them.

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think where you've gone wrong is by getting hung up on the idea that whatever was around prior to the big bang had to be 'eternal.' time as we know it may have been created in the big bang but that doesn't necessarily suggest anything final about the state prior to. its possible that something could have existed prior to and leading up to the state of singularity, like the universe could have already been created, expanded, and collapsed back in on itself in an infinite regression. or maybe the universe exists in one corner of a larger multiverse and our version of time/space/existence is just one of many. you're setting the standard that 'whatever created time had to be eternal' based on what is essentially philosophical mysticism rather than any actual limitation of time itself.

Because if time came into being at the big bang, how can something exist before time, yet still be in time? It can't, because time didn't exist. I'm not understanding how you can claim that something is inside of time before time had even come to be.

You're offering the possibility that the universe is, in fact, eternal. But this has already been refuted by cosmology. It's well known that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

I dont see how something existing before the big bang eliminates causality...

Because to exist before the Big Bang is to exist before time. Which means you are outside of time, which means you are eternal. Something that is eternal has no cause. It has simply always been and will always be.

Mindship

Originally posted by TacDavey
Something that is eternal has no cause. It has simply always been and will always be. Why couldn't chaotic inflation be eternal?

TacDavey

Originally posted by Mindship
Why couldn't chaotic inflation be eternal?

I'm not sure exactly what chaotic inflation is, but I do know that cosmologists have determined that the universe is not eternal, if that's what you're asking. And that matter, space, and time all came into existence at the Big Bang.

Mindship

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not sure exactly what chaotic inflation is, but I do know that cosmologists have determined that the universe is not eternal, if that's what you're asking. And that matter, space, and time all came into existence at the Big Bang. Chaotic inflation says that ours was not the only big bang; that big bangs have been occurring eternally in a vaster, multiversal domain in which our 'universe' is but one of an infinitude. It would be analogous to virtual particles frothing in our universe's vacuum.

Essentially, it proposes a higher dimensional context, something outside the only reality we've ever known. While currently there is no proof other dimensions exist, this can be, theoretically, tested for. Eg, it is hoped the Large Hadron Collider will give us a glimpse of another dimension by checking for missing energy.

Personally, I think God handed the job of our universe to a demiurge.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Mindship
Chaotic inflation says that ours was not the only big bang; that big bangs have been occurring eternally in a vaster, multiversal domain in which our 'universe' is but one of an infinitude. It would be analogous to virtual particles frothing in our universe's vacuum.

Essentially, it proposes a higher dimensional context, something outside the only reality we've ever known. While currently there is no proof other dimensions exist, this can be, theoretically, tested for. Eg, it is hoped the Large Hadron Collider will give us a glimpse of another dimension by checking for missing energy.

Personally, I think God handed the job of our universe to a demiurge.

I see... So according to this hypothesis other dimensions caused the Big Bang in ours?

What's a demiurge?

Mindship

Originally posted by TacDavey
I see... So according to this hypothesis other dimensions caused the Big Bang in ours? Something like that.

What's a demiurge? Essentially, it's a subordinate divine being directly responsible for producing the material universe; kind of like how a leaf emerges from a branch, not directly from the tree trunk.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Mindship
Something like that.

Hmm... Well, we'll see if they produce evidence to support it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Essentially, it's a subordinate divine being directly responsible for producing the material universe; kind of like how a leaf emerges from a branch, not directly from the tree trunk.

Ah, I see.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, we'll see if they produce evidence to support it.

Irony.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Irony.

Irony? Are you implying a lack of evidence on my part? What evidence would you like to see, sir?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Irony? Are you implying a lack of evidence on my part? What evidence would you like to see, sir?

Any, at all, that supports your specific conclusion.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Any, at all, that supports your specific conclusion.

Which one? That there is a God, or that the universe is not eternal? I've already presented the logic behind the reason to believe the universe has a creator.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Which one? That there is a God, or that the universe is not eternal? I've already presented the logic behind the reason to believe the universe has a creator.

You've given reasoning and analogies but provided no evidence. And I've never met someone who believed in "a creator" in the generic, generally that creator has properties to it (ie "the creator is an entity of some kind" or "the creator is God" or "the creator is the God believed in by the New Light Presybterian Reform Tradition" wink

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've given reasoning and analogies but provided no evidence. And I've never met someone who believed in "a creator" in the generic, generally that creator has properties to it (ie "the creator is an entity of some kind" or "the creator is God" or "the creator is the God believed in by the New Light Presybterian Reform Tradition" wink

Alright, so you're talking about my claim that the universe is not eternal then?

This has been discovered by modern cosmology.

Paul Davies (physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."

Velenkin (from Bord, Guth and Velenkin): "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, (The Nature of Space and Time page 20): "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."

John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, (The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford Universeity Press pg. 38.): "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creeation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."

These are just a few. The point is, modern cosmology has already found that the universe is not eternal.

inimalist

/facepalm

have you read those books?

inimalist

I'll clarify:

Hawking does not believe in a creator. He outlines this explicitly in his books and writings, and further when asked directly about it.

To quote Hawking as if he is in some way supporting a creator is a misquote, so egrigious is borders on an outright fabrication. My thought is that anyone who is familiar with Hawking and his work wouldn't make these mistakes, thus, I am lead to believe you haven't read the passage from which the quote was taken, let alone any of Hawking's work on astrophysics.

The only saving grace you would have is if you hadn't read the piece, frankly, otherwise you would be guilty of selective quoting yourself.

This leads me to be extremely suspiscious of your other quotes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawking-idUSTRE6811FN20100902

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright, so you're talking about my claim that the universe is not eternal then?

No. I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence for a creator. Analogies to everyday experience are not evidence especially once you get into things like quantum physics (which is very relevant to the origins of the universe).

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll clarify:

Hawking does not believe in a creator. He outlines this explicitly in his books and writings, and further when asked directly about it.

To quote Hawking as if he is in some way supporting a creator is a misquote, so egrigious is borders on an outright fabrication. My thought is that anyone who is familiar with Hawking and his work wouldn't make these mistakes, thus, I am lead to believe you haven't read the passage from which the quote was taken, let alone any of Hawking's work on astrophysics.

The only saving grace you would have is if you hadn't read the piece, frankly, otherwise you would be guilty of selective quoting yourself.

This leads me to be extremely suspiscious of your other quotes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawking-idUSTRE6811FN20100902

You misunderstand me. I never made the claim that Hawkings thinks there is a creator. I never said he did. At what point in that quote do you see a creator mentioned at all?

That quote was showing that the universe is not eternal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No. I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence for a creator. Analogies to everyday experience are not evidence especially once you get into things like quantum physics (which is very relevant to the origins of the universe).

Ah, I see. In that case allow me to lay out the basic logic behind the kalam cosmological argument.

p1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
p2: The universe began to exist (See above quotes).
c: The universe has a cause.

Once we know the universe must have a cause, we have to figure out what that cause would be. It's one of two options.

1.) A being will the ability to create a universe

or

2.) A set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe. (This is basically saying anything else)

But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

So the only other option is 1. A being with the ability to make a universe, and the will to choose to make one or not.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
That quote was showing that the universe is not eternal.

nobody has argued otherwise...

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right?

Wrong, we know nothing about reality prior to the Big Bang.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
nobody has argued otherwise...

Symmetric Chaos wanted evidence and I thought he was talking about evidence the universe isn't eternal. My mistake.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wrong, we know nothing about reality prior to the Big Bang.

We know that time didn't exist. So whatever DID exist had to be outside of it.

red g jacks

i want you to define 'eternal,' in the scientific sense, if you will

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
We know that time didn't exist. So whatever DID exist had to be outside of it.

What's your evidence that time didn't exist?

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
i want you to define 'eternal,' in the scientific sense, if you will

Eternal is outside of time. Not being bound by time. Having no beginning, no end.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's your evidence that time didn't exist?

Take a look back through all those quotes I brought. Modern cosmology has determined that matter, space, and time all came into being at the Big Bang.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Take a look back through all those quotes I brought. Modern cosmology has determined that matter, space, and time all came into being at the Big Bang.

So, no actual *evidence* about what reality was like before the Big Bang then? None of those declarations seem like ones made in scientific papers, anyway, rather ones in pop-science books which are infamously poorly made if you want to learn about science.

But, okay, you haven't provided any *evidence* to established even the most basic point that you need to but I suppose we can pretend you did in order to move things along. That still would not count as *evidence* of a creator, only of a creation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

This is all self contradictory. If an entity can exist outside of time then by your own argument things can exist outside of time. Sentience is not a necessity.

So let's see you've given no *evidence* and the parts of your argument supposedly based on reason disprove themselves (which you attempt to resolve with a roundabout Special Pleading argument).

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, no actual *evidence* about what reality was like before the Big Bang then? None of those declarations seem like ones made in scientific papers, anyway, rather ones in pop-science books which are infamously poorly made if you want to learn about science.

But, okay, you haven't provided any *evidence* to established even the most basic point that you need to but I suppose we can pretend you did in order to move things along. That still would not count as *evidence* of a creator, only of a creation.

I gave you quotes from the experts in the field. That's evidence. I'm not a cosmologist. I'm going on what cosmologists are saying.

What's illogical is to brush off what the professionals are saying, as you are doing now.

You have given me no reason to assume you are more learned on the subject than they are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is all self contradictory. If an entity can exist outside of time then by your own argument things can exist outside of time. Sentience is not a necessity.

So let's see you've given no *evidence* and the parts of your argument supposedly based on reason disprove themselves (which you attempt to resolve with a roundabout Special Pleading argument).

You did not pay attention to my argument. I allowed for the possibility that the necessary and sufficient conditions are eternal. I NEVER said that something has to be sentient to be eternal. I showed why, in this case, it is logically impossible that a non sentient set of conditions created the universe. Read over it again.

Admiral Akbar

Tac..logic can only take you so far. You can come up with an entirely logical conclusion yet still be wrong. But from what I have read you provide no proof for any of your claims, just rhetoric, most of it from theists like William Craig who btw also provides no proof for any of his claims meaning your "sources" are not legit.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Tac..logic can only take you so far. You can come up with an entirely logical conclusion yet still be wrong. But from what I have read you provide no proof for any of your claims, just rhetoric, most of it from theists like William Craig who btw also provides no proof for any of his claims meaning your "sources" are not legit.

What do you mean I have provided no evidence? What were all those quotes I gave you? What evidence are you looking for? Point out the specific premise of the argument that you would like me to provide evidence for.

Darth Truculent

Never claimed to be all knowing about science and religion. Wasn't my major in college. My major was American Civil War plus minored in Modern Middle East.

Back to what I was writing. If there is nothing, not a shred of matter in the universe, then how can there be a big bang? You did not answer my question why there are not any more galaxies being formed or evolution still happening today. Did matter simply say "well, we're done." You are basing your beliefs on faith - scientific faith. Why are human and primate not compatable. You would argue this is scientific fact. Does matter magically create an explosive device? Does matter magically build a car? It takes mankind to do that. Man is very arrogant to believe that everything can be explained with science.

As to your question about the crossover between man and primates on my first post - in the 1930s, Stalin attempted to create a super soldier using primate DNA. A woman volunteered and they put primate sperm in one of her eggs. It didn't work even after several attempts.

And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Back to what I was writing. If there is nothing, not a shred of matter in the universe, then how can there be a big bang?

There's no good answer to that yet, and there may well never be.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
You did not answer my question why there are not any more galaxies being formed or evolution still happening today.

Neither of those has stopped.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Why are human and primate not compatable.

Because they are different species.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Does matter magically create an explosive device? Does matter magically build a car?

So? Matter spontaneously does all kinds of other things. I don't believe anyone has claimed that cars were created by the Big Bang, anyway.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

There are in fact hundreds of stories of people being shot in the head with pistols and surviving. We know that is the sort of thing that just happens sometimes. Terminal ballistics is one of the least studied phenomenon in all of physics (because scientists aren't willing to just shoot people and see what happens). So the reason there is no explanation is not because its inexplicable, it's because no one is willing to study it.

As a general rule, however, living things are incredibly easy to injure but ridiculously hard to kill.

aaaakillamike@$

J3$U$ W@S N()T TH3 M3$$1@H!!!!! P3R1()D

Admiral Akbar

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean I have provided no evidence? What were all those quotes I gave you? What evidence are you looking for? Point out the specific premise of the argument that you would like me to provide evidence for.

How about we start with god's existence, since it is apparent he exists provide the sources you looked into to come to that conclusion. I could make up a quote right now and say it comes from a lead expert in the scientific field...I want links. Preferably non-bias ones.

aaaakillamike@$

TH3 D3@D S3@ SCR()LL$?

TacDavey

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
How about we start with god's existence, since it is apparent he exists provide the sources you looked into to come to that conclusion. I could make up a quote right now and say it comes from a lead expert in the scientific field...I want links. Preferably non-bias ones.

God's existence is what that argument I just gave is suppose to show. It's a deductive argument, which means if the premises are all true, then the conclusion MUST be true. I hold that all the premises are true. So which premise do you disagree with?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
God's existence is what that argument I just gave is suppose to show. It's a deductive argument, which means if the premises are all true, then the conclusion MUST be true.

WRONG!

It means that if the premises are true, the form is valid, and there are no informal fallacies committed then the conclusion must be true. You never gave good support to your premises (so we have no reason to accept any of them as true) and you commit all kids of different informal fallacies. I'm too bored to see if you screwed up the form as well.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
2.) A set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe. (This is basically saying anything else)

But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

...

I don't understand this point, maybe I'm totally missing it.

So, lets say in a given environment (X) a certain event (Y) can only occur if certain necessary and sufficient criteria are met (A, B, C).

So, if A B and C occur in X, Y happens.

how does this necessitate a point where A, B and C are true but not Y? by definition, if A, B and C occur, but not Y, A B and C are not sufficient to produce Y.

EDIT: so, for example, lets say Y = falling, X = Earth, and A = not holding onto something, B = not standing on anything, and C = body not supported by any object

so, if A, B & C are true, at location X, Y happens. The only argument you could make where A/B/C are true but not Y is of an entirely semantic nature , but that simply redefines Y such that A, B and C are no longer sufficient to produce Y .

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
Eternal is outside of time. Not being bound by time. Having no beginning, no end.

this isn't scientific at all, but let's proceed anyway

by your definition the point of singularity is without a doubt classified as not eternal.. since it obviously had an end and there's no reason to assume it didn't have a beginning.

so essentially you are assuming that whatever 'created' time must have had properties that are not supported by the current model of the conditions that hypothetically preceded the big bang/creation of our universe.

you then use this unnecessary assumption to pose the loaded question 'what created time' with the unfounded condition that whatever it was had to have some sort of mystical 'eternal' property.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!

It means that if the premises are true, the form is valid, and there are no informal fallacies committed then the conclusion must be true. You never gave good support to your premises (so we have no reason to accept any of them as true) and you commit all kids of different informal fallacies. I'm too bored to see if you screwed up the form as well.

Well, yes, the argument has to be set up correctly. I figured it went without saying that if the argument isn't done correctly it wouldn't be considered true.

You claim I commit fallacies but don't specify where. I just asked you to point out which premise you disagree with or want to see evidence for. Instead, you simply accuse me of not providing evidence. How about you pick a spot you think I screwed up on and point it out so I can defend it and we can get this debate rolling?

inimalist

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
And nobody answered the question of the medical mysteries on spontaneous healing. Nobody answered how the congresswoman who should be dead survived and is now up, walking and talking. The exit wound from a 9mm is pretty destructive. Can you explain it please? She should have been DOA or killed instantly.

re: phineas gage

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
...

I don't understand this point, maybe I'm totally missing it.

So, lets say in a given environment (X) a certain event (Y) can only occur if certain necessary and sufficient criteria are met (A, B, C).

So, if A B and C occur in X, Y happens.

how does this necessitate a point where A, B and C are true but not Y? by definition, if A, B and C occur, but not Y, A B and C are not sufficient to produce Y.

EDIT: so, for example, lets say Y = falling, X = Earth, and A = not holding onto something, B = not standing on anything, and C = body not supported by any object

so, if A, B & C are true, at location X, Y happens. The only argument you could make where A/B/C are true but not Y is of an entirely semantic nature , but that simply redefines Y such that A, B and C are no longer sufficient to produce Y .

No no, that's the point. If A, B, and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Y to happen and they are all met, Y will ALWAYS happen. No exceptions.

Which is why it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a set of conditions. Because once they are met, it MUST happen. But since whatever created the universe was outside of time, that means that you would be claiming that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions were there, but did not produce a universe.

Let me try and further explain it. Say AB and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a universe to be created. Now say they are eternal, as they would have to be. That means they are ALWAYS met. You will never be in a situation in which there is not A, B or C. Right? However, since the universe has a beginning, that means that it didn't exist at one time, right? It had to NOT exist before it could BEGIN to exist. But since AB and C are ALWAYS there, that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence when AB and C existed, but there was no universe, which is, as even you pointed out, logically impossible.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this isn't scientific at all, but let's proceed anyway

by your definition the point of singularity is without a doubt classified as not eternal.. since it obviously had an end and there's no reason to assume it didn't have a beginning.

so essentially you are assuming that whatever 'created' time must have had properties that are not supported by the current model of the conditions that hypothetically preceded the big bang/creation of our universe.

you then use this unnecessary assumption to pose the loaded question 'what created time' with the unfounded condition that whatever it was had to have some sort of mystical 'eternal' property.

Okay, whatever created time had to be outside of time. Do we agree?

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
No no, that's the point. If A, B, and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Y to happen and they are all met, Y will ALWAYS happen. No exceptions.

Which is why it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a set of conditions. Because once they are met, it MUST happen. But since whatever created the universe was outside of time, that means that you would be claiming that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions were there, but did not produce a universe.

Let me try and further explain it. Say AB and C are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a universe to be created. Now say they are eternal, as they would have to be. That means they are ALWAYS met. You will never be in a situation in which there is not A, B or C. Right? However, since the universe has a beginning, that means that it didn't exist at one time, right? It had to NOT exist before it could BEGIN to exist. But since AB and C are ALWAYS there, that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence when AB and C existed, but there was no universe, which is, as even you pointed out, logically impossible.

oh, ok, I see where you mixed it up

what evidence do you have to support the claim that things in the pre-universe were unchanging?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, whatever created time had to be outside of time. Do we agree?

outside of the time that is determined by the physical nature of our universe, sure

outside of the laws of causality? no, there is no reason to believe this and all mathematical models of the big bang that I know of assume otherwise

do you have any reason to believe otherwise? Like, a model of pre-universe that shows absolute and eternal homogeneity?

red g jacks

i dont agree that time was specifically 'created,' i think it emerged as one of the dimensions of the universe as we perceive it today. before the universe existed this dimension/mode of measurment also didn't exist. i don't think that necessarily implies any sort of supernatural intervention.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, ok, I see where you mixed it up

what evidence do you have to support the claim that things in the pre-universe were unchanging?

Are you asking me what evidence I have that time came into existence at the Big Bang? It's all there in the quotes.

Originally posted by inimalist
outside of the time that is determined by the physical nature of our universe, sure

outside of the laws of causality? no, there is no reason to believe this and all mathematical models of the big bang that I know of assume otherwise

do you have any reason to believe otherwise? Like, a model of pre-universe that shows absolute and eternal homogeneity?

If something has no beginning it doesn't need a cause. I don't get what you're saying here...

According to modern cosmology, matter, space, and time came into being at the Big Bang. So before the Big Bang, none of those things existed.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dont agree that time was specifically 'created,' i think it emerged as one of the dimensions of the universe as we perceive it today. before the universe existed this dimension/mode of measurment also didn't exist. i don't think that necessarily implies any sort of supernatural intervention.

The argument is suppose to show that it DOES need supernatural intervention. The Big Bang cannot have been caused by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. That's what the argument shows, if you disagree, point out where the argument is flawed. It would be easier if you could point out a specific premise that you disagree with so I can respond to it.

red g jacks

i disagree with the premise that whatever resulted in the creation of 'time' as we know it was 'eternal' in the sense that it had no beginning and no end. i view time not as a restrictive force but as a dimension of our own universe. i have presented several alternative scenarios to your assertion that singularity had to be a never ending eternal state prior to the big bang, but you rejected those without giving any definitive reason why they couldn't be true.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
The argument is suppose to show that it DOES need supernatural intervention. The Big Bang cannot have been caused by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. That's what the argument shows, if you disagree, point out where the argument is flawed. It would be easier if you could point out a specific premise that you disagree with so I can respond to it.

This self contradictory. If the supernatural created the Big Bang then the supernatural is sufficient to cause it. If it could only be the supernatural then it is necessary.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Are you asking me what evidence I have that time came into existence at the Big Bang? It's all there in the quotes.

no, I'm asking how you know the pre-universe was homogeneous, as this is something all astrophysicists/cosmologists I know of disagree with.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If something has no beginning it doesn't need a cause. I don't get what you're saying here...

what has no beginning?

Originally posted by TacDavey
According to modern cosmology, matter, space, and time came into being at the Big Bang. So before the Big Bang, none of those things existed.

time (as in what exists as a physical property of our universe) is not the same as causality.

but you are right, none of those things existed, they are a property of our universe... what is your point?

The fact is that "something" existed in some form that we can model with math, and all such models still depend on causality. There is no evidence to suggest that the conditions of the pre-universe are set, unchanging or homogeneous.

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
i disagree with the premise that whatever resulted in the creation of 'time' as we know it was 'eternal' in the sense that it had no beginning and no end. i view time not as a restrictive force but as a dimension of our own universe. i have presented several alternative scenarios to your assertion that singularity had to be a never ending eternal state prior to the big bang, but you rejected those without giving any definitive reason why they couldn't be true.

If something has a beginning or an end then it exists in time. Beginning and ends are things specific to time. They both require a "timeline" in that there needs to be a point at which it didn't exist and then a point at which it did.

To say something can be outside of time and have a beginning or end is logically impossible.

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I don't know what you mean by a "dimension of our universe". It didn't exist before the Big Bang. At least that's what the cosmologists are saying, and you have given me no reason that I should take your word over theirs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This self contradictory. If the supernatural created the Big Bang then the supernatural is sufficient to cause it. If it could only be the supernatural then it is necessary.

Let me clarify, it couldn't be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that didn't have a will of it's own. Technically you could call God the "necessary and sufficient conditions", but you know what I meant.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I'm asking how you know the pre-universe was homogeneous, as this is something all astrophysicists/cosmologists I know of disagree with.

what has no beginning?

time (as in what exists as a physical property of our universe) is not the same as causality.

but you are right, none of those things existed, they are a property of our universe... what is your point?

The fact is that "something" existed in some form that we can model with math, and all such models still depend on causality. There is no evidence to suggest that the conditions of the pre-universe are set, unchanging or homogeneous.

Yes, whatever existed before the Big Bang had to be changeless, because change requires time. Which didn't exist.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, whatever existed before the Big Bang had to be changeless, because change requires time. Which didn't exist.

ok, let me state this in an unquestionable way:

This is in stark disagreement with what the best and brightests scientists have to say on the matter. I am not an astrophysicist, so I probably can't explain it really well to you, but it is out there. Any model on how the universe came to be assumes some sort of change, and no, it does not require the physical "time" of our universe for this to happen.

I know your faith predisposes you to think otherwise, but what you are saying is distinctly not in line with modern science at this point.

Yymartinvan

you do relize that this is a pointless argument, becuase it will just keep going, until someone gives up

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
If something has a beginning or an end then it exists in time. Beginning and ends are things specific to time. They both require a "timeline" in that there needs to be a point at which it didn't exist and then a point at which it did.

To say something can be outside of time and have a beginning or end is logically impossible.

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I don't know what you mean by a "dimension of our universe". It didn't exist before the Big Bang. At least that's what the cosmologists are saying, and you have given me no reason that I should take your word over theirs.
you're still looking at time as if it is strictly a restrictive force that governs matter in the known universe. 'if something has a beginning and an end then it is within time.' this is a false assumption. time is a dimension of the known universe, a plane on which we can travel. if you dont know what i mean by this then you haven't been looking into the subject thoroughly enough. there are 3 physical dimensions along with time, that make up a 4 dimensional reality. 4 planes on which travel is possible.

before our own version of time/space came into existence with the creation of our universe, its completely possible that another version of time and space existed and collapsed back in on itself creating the singularity that lead to the creation of our universe. or its possible that our universe hatched out of the conditions of a larger multiverse with many alternate dimensions of time and space existing simultaneously.

perhaps the 'eternal conditions' which birthed all of existence are merely the mathematical probabilities which dictate the ensuing physical realities that we now observe and perceive as the divine manifestations of a limitless creator.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, let me state this in an unquestionable way:

This is in stark disagreement with what the best and brightests scientists have to say on the matter. I am not an astrophysicist, so I probably can't explain it really well to you, but it is out there. Any model on how the universe came to be assumes some sort of change, and no, it does not require the physical "time" of our universe for this to happen.

I know your faith predisposes you to think otherwise, but what you are saying is distinctly not in line with modern science at this point.

Those quotes say otherwise.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you're still looking at time as if it is strictly a restrictive force that governs matter in the known universe. 'if something has a beginning and an end then it is within time.' this is a false assumption. time is a dimension of the known universe, a plane on which we can travel. if you dont know what i mean by this then you haven't been looking into the subject thoroughly enough. there are 3 physical dimensions along with time, that make up a 4 dimensional reality. 4 planes on which travel is possible.

before our own version of time/space came into existence with the creation of our universe, its completely possible that another version of time and space existed and collapsed back in on itself creating the singularity that lead to the creation of our universe. or its possible that our universe hatched out of the conditions of a larger multiverse with many alternate dimensions of time and space existing simultaneously.

perhaps the 'eternal conditions' which birthed all of existence are merely the mathematical probabilities which dictate the ensuing physical realities that we now observe and perceive as the divine manifestations of a limitless creator.

Oh, I see. You are holding to the theory that the universe bangs out, contracts, and bangs out again. This is not in line with what modern cosmology has found. Again, I'll point right back to the quotes. The Big Bang is the start of matter, space, and time. Not the recycling of them, the start.

As for the multiple dimension argument, I have yet to see any hard facts or evidence supporting this. As I have heard it, there is no good evidence that other dimensions exist.

You cannot just offer possibilities and claim they combat my argument. Here's another possibility. The universe was made by a giant invisible plant creature. It's possible. Is it likely? No. Does it combat my argument. No.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let me clarify, it couldn't be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that didn't have a will of it's own. Technically you could call God the "necessary and sufficient conditions", but you know what I meant.

I note that you still haven't proven why it needs to have a will of its own.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I note that you still haven't proven why it needs to have a will of its own.

Yes I have. I think I've explained it at least twice now. Probably more like three times. Go back and read my arguments.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey

Oh, I see. You are holding to the theory that the universe bangs out, contracts, and bangs out again. This is not in line with what modern cosmology has found. Again, I'll point right back to the quotes. The Big Bang is the start of matter, space, and time. Not the recycling of them, the start.

As for the multiple dimension argument, I have yet to see any hard facts or evidence supporting this. As I have heard it, there is no good evidence that other dimensions exist.

You cannot just offer possibilities and claim they combat my argument. Here's another possibility. The universe was made by a giant invisible plant creature. It's possible. Is it likely? No. Does it combat my argument. No. you seem to be confused.

what i said is perfectly in line with modern cosmology, and the big bang theory. in fact it is based on the arguments of scientists who support that model that i got these ideas in the first place. i didn't simply make them up.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_big_bang_no.html
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

meanwhile, none of the credible scientists seem to adhere to the rhetoric you are espousing: that since time as we know it didnt exist before the big bang that the conditions prior to were necessarily unchanging or 'eternal'.