Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    That's not using the scientific method. Do you even know what the scientific method IS?
    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

    I think it applies because if you test to see whether there are natural explanations for certain phenomena or unexplained events (miracles included) then science can show that it is at least possible to have been a natural event, instead of a miraculous one.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
      You are defending Hume, whether or not you want to admit it or not. There's no "scientific approach" to whether or not miracles occur, nor is there a scientific approach to the existence of God. These are philosophical questions. Cloaking philosophy in science (as Dawkins et al do) is bad philosophy and bad science.
      whether miracles occur and whether God exists is different than seeing whether this particular miracle could have had a natural explanation.

      But i do agree that miracles exist outside of science. But they are so rare that their existence is questioned. it would be like someone claiming that this certain body died by a vampire. even if there were bight marks, i wouldn't believe it. i'd search for every other possibility before I even considered vampires as a thought. If there are other possibilities, I would think a good detective would pursue those leads while completely ignoring a vampire hypothesis.

      and maybe faith hides behind philosophy in order to evade science.
      Last edited by William; 08-19-2015, 01:51 PM.

      Comment


      • and science tell us a lot about how the world works. If something is claimed that goes counter to what we know of the world, then of course it's reasonable that doubt will arise.

        Mistakes, gullibility, lies, deception - all are known to exist in our world. It is also part of how the world works.

        These are the reasons why many view the bible's supernatural claims skeptically.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          That's not using the scientific method. Do you even know what the scientific method IS?
          Medicine and the clinical judgments of doctors in treating disease and injuries is based on the scientific method (research based on evidence). Modern doctors do not treat people based on what an inner "spirit" tells us.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by William View Post
            but when certain books of a particular faith make claims regarding science, then wouldn't that be up for science to speak on?

            and if scientific study shows that people can in fact misidentify people that are close to them, and that memories are not static and that people can believe all sorts of erroneous things, then that scientific possibility should be ignored when eyewitness testimony is the strength of the faith argument?
            The kind of things that I am referring to are these:

            The law of gravity determines that an two objects of dissimilar weight dropped simultaneously from a height will hit the ground at the same time.

            There is no way that the sun could be brought to a stand in the sky for 24 hours (from the observer's perspective) - not anywhere in this universe.

            There is no way that the sun could reverse its course (from the observer's perspective) so that a shadow backs up two steps on a flight of stairs, not anywhere in the universe.

            Every claim that "science demonstrates that it can't be done": that is, every time that the possibility of a miracle is denied because - well - science: a faith claim is being made. One natural law can be over-ridden by the correct application of another (or others).

            When the possibility of the existence of God (or gods) is denied because - well - science, that claim is a denial of the possibility that any being - capable of employing alternative natural laws to circumvent the normally prevailing laws - could exist. Such a being would not even necessarily need to have supernatural characteristics - just a superior knowledge base and technology.

            Returning to the three faith claims that I referred to earlier. Gravity is a constant, but the faith claim that objects will hit the ground simultaneously - it's a faith claim because - well - parachutes, wings, and sans either - you could have an object light enough to hit terminal velocity before it hits the ground. Aerodynamics over-rides gravity.

            The other two are no better: there, the faith claim is based on a simple over-estimation of the person's knowledge of science. Even if the claim was simply it can't happen on Earth, there is a basic faith claim involved that natural laws couldn't be overridden by other natural laws. Or that there is no being sufficiently advanced (whether in innate power or in technology) to employ those alternative laws.
            Last edited by tabibito; 08-19-2015, 02:11 PM.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by William View Post
              physicians always think they know science...

              witch doctors.
              Yes, I keep voodoo dolls, tom toms, a book of hexes, and witch's brews in my office for the really BAD diseases...and really bad patients.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                You are defending Hume, whether or not you want to admit it or not. There's no "scientific approach" to whether or not miracles occur, nor is there a scientific approach to the existence of God. These are philosophical questions. Cloaking philosophy in science (as Dawkins et al do) is bad philosophy and bad science.
                I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a Creator with the scientific method. What I am claiming is that miracles involving the human body, especially when these claims are allegedly supported by "medical documentation", can be examined using research and examination techniques based on the scientific method. Modern physicians do not consult the "humors" or "spirits" for answers to disease.

                To be clear, right now I am only talking about alleged medical cures as claimed by Keneer and others. I readily admit that the scientific method cannot be used to evaluate the Resurrection claim of Jesus, UNLESS, we have access to the body/skeleton, xrays, MRI's, CT scans, and lab work from the first century AD, which we do not.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-19-2015, 02:48 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  By no means. When atheists try to argue science in opposition to religion, they are going beyond the realms of science to make faith statements - they are not engaged simply in science, but in faith.

                  In the end, faith is faith. We have no way to demonstrate (even assuming that the EXISTENCE of God is proven beyond all doubt to every person living) that God is as loving and merciful as we believe. We have no way of demonstrating that he intends to keep any of the promises that he makes. This - the trust that is vested in God - is what it is to have faith without evidence. There is no cause to believe that God expects people to have faith and to be faithful without being satisfied that he actually exists.

                  1Corinthians 2:
                  4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of humanfn wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
                  I couldn't disagree more. We have very good reason to trust God, and he has demonstrated time and time again that he keeps the promises that he makes. The type of faith that you seem to accept most people around here would consider very weak. And in fact, its that sort of blind faith that's eating at Christianity from within. The type of Christian who relies on such blind faith is easy prey to skepticism, because that person typically never thought to ask why he ought to believe what he believes beyond the shaky hope that God might keep his promises. But in the patron-client world that the authors of the NT lived in, to have trust in one's patron to deliver was not merely wishful thinking, it wasn't a-hopin-and-a-prayin. It was trust based on the knowledge that the patron was more than capable of keeping his promises and that he had a strong record of doing so. As David deSilva puts it in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity,

                  Source: Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity by David deSilva

                  It is worth noting at this point that faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations and had, like grace, a variety of meanings as the context shifted from the patron's faith to the client's faith. In one sense, faith meant "dependability." The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to "keep faith" as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is "trust": the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron to whom the client entrusted his or her need, that the patron would indeed perform what he or she promised, while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  And also in Perseverance of Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,

                  Source: Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by David deSilva

                  In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the "substance" or "underlying essence" of something...the same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of "title deed" or "guarantee," attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians' loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron's promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her, or entrusts a request or need to a patron, "trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having "trust" is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing "distrust" toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as "distrust" manifested itself in "disobedience," which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land).

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    The kind of things that I am referring to are these:

                    The law of gravity determines that an two objects of dissimilar weight dropped simultaneously from a height will hit the ground at the same time.

                    There is no way that the sun could be brought to a stand in the sky for 24 hours (from the observer's perspective) - not anywhere in this universe.

                    There is no way that the sun could reverse its course (from the observer's perspective) so that a shadow backs up two steps on a flight of stairs, not anywhere in the universe.

                    Every claim that "science demonstrates that it can't be done": that is, every time that the possibility of a miracle is denied because - well - science: a faith claim is being made. One natural law can be over-ridden by the correct application of another (or others). When the possibility of the existence of God (or gods) is denied because - well - science, that claim is a denial of the possibility that any being - capable of employing alternative natural laws to circumvent the normally prevailing laws - could exist. Such a being would not even necessarily need to have supernatural characteristics - just a superior knowledge base and technology.

                    Returning to the three faith claims that I referred to earlier. Gravity is a constant, but the faith claim that objects will hit the ground simultaneously - it's a faith claim because - well - parachutes, wings, sans either - you could have an object light enough to hit terminal velocity before it hits the ground. Aerodynamics over-rides gravity.

                    The other two are no better: there, the faith claim is based on a simple over-estimation of the person's knowledge of science. Even if the claim was simply it can't happen on Earth, there is a basic faith claim involved that natural laws couldn't be overridden by other natural laws. Or that there is a being sufficiently advanced (whether in innate power or in technology) to employ those alternative laws.

                    but often we speak about what's likely or me likely.

                    so if test after test after test yields one particular result, why would we say the conclusion is a result that never happened? So the testable results are much more likely, while results that never came up in testing are considered unlikely and maybe even impossible.

                    I am not sure that Aerodynamics over-rides gravity. Think about it like competing forces, both act upon an object, so their working at the same time. With both items of differing rates falling at the same speed is understood to be referring to a vacuum where there is no air resistance or referring to two objects of differing weights that have similar aerodynamic properties.

                    the faith claim begins with the assumption that something outside of our physical, natural world does in fact exist and at times operates outside of those physical and natural laws. We try to avoid the circular argument of "God is real, and we can know God is real because of the miracles, and we can know that miracles are real because God can do anything..." And it gets difficult.

                    Is there a creator or creators?

                    is it or are they all powerful and all knowing, or is it or are they just more powerful than us and know more than us?

                    Do they, does it really perform miracles?

                    are miracles real?

                    are the accounts of miracles real? and then are we talking all miracles of all faiths, and if not how do we differentiate between them all?

                    claims aren't always accurate. we have an understanding of this world that very often conflicts with miracles.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by William View Post
                      right.

                      and at least for me, when considering everything else, this makes much more sense than the alternative, which has a man coming back to life and flying away. If this type of miracle is presented as valid, and by some to be the most likely scenario, then mistaken identities and legend surely shouldn't be discounted.
                      Then why did you put "but people wouldn't die for a lie" in quotes, as if that's something that Christian apologists say, and then go on to tell us that other religions have martyrs (which would have been a complete non sequitur)?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Yes, I keep voodoo dolls, tom toms, a book of hexes, and witch's brews in my office for the really BAD diseases...and really bad patients.
                        yeah, I routinely visit WebMD, so I'm practically a doctor now too.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Then why did you put "but people wouldn't die for a lie" in quotes, as if that's something that Christian apologists say, and then go on to tell us that other religions have martyrs (which would have been a complete non sequitur)?
                          i have had apologists say that. and you revised it to read, ""but people wouldn't die for what they know is a lie," so I still think it is still valid for this forum. but even so, yes all religions have martyrs.

                          I just trying to cross as many bridges as I could think of.

                          but as long as we're all in agreement that "but people wouldn't die for a lie" is dumb defense and that "but people wouldn't die for what they know is a lie," goes without saying and that all religions have martyrs (people who die for what they believed in) then it seems like to me that maybe we all agree that just because someone or a group of someones believes something fervently and devoutly in no way means what they believe in is actually factual.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            i have had apologists say that. and you revised it to read, ""but people wouldn't die for what they know is a lie," so I still think it is still valid for this forum. but even so, yes all religions have martyrs.

                            I just trying to cross as many bridges as I could think of.
                            Sounds more like moving goalposts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by William
                              the faith claim begins with the assumption that something outside of our physical, natural world does in fact exist and at times operates outside of those physical and natural laws. We try to avoid the circular argument of "God is real, and we can know God is real because of the miracles, and we can know that miracles are real because God can do anything..." And it gets difficult.
                              It is circular reasoning until one of the points is demonstrated as fact, and it is the theist's faith claim.

                              We know enough of science to be confident that the normally prevailing laws cannot be circumvented or over-ridden by proper application of other laws, except in cases that have already been demonstrated: that is the atheist's faith claim.

                              But which one is arguing from incredulity?
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                I couldn't disagree more. We have very good reason to trust God, and he has demonstrated time and time again that he keeps the promises that he makes. The type of faith that you seem to accept most people around here would consider very weak. And in fact, its that sort of blind faith that's eating at Christianity from within. The type of Christian who relies on such blind faith is easy prey to skepticism, because that person typically never thought to ask why he ought to believe what he believes beyond the shaky hope that God might keep his promises. But in the patron-client world that the authors of the NT lived in, to have trust in one's patron to deliver was not merely wishful thinking, it wasn't a-hopin-and-a-prayin. It was trust based on the knowledge that the patron was more than capable of keeping his promises and that he had a strong record of doing so. As David deSilva puts it in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity,

                                Source: Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity by David deSilva

                                It is worth noting at this point that faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations and had, like grace, a variety of meanings as the context shifted from the patron's faith to the client's faith. In one sense, faith meant "dependability." The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to "keep faith" as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is "trust": the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron to whom the client entrusted his or her need, that the patron would indeed perform what he or she promised, while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                And also in Perseverance of Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,

                                Source: Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by David deSilva

                                In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the "substance" or "underlying essence" of something...the same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of "title deed" or "guarantee," attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians' loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron's promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her, or entrusts a request or need to a patron, "trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having "trust" is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing "distrust" toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as "distrust" manifested itself in "disobedience," which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land).

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                this is also how I used to believe it all. There was evidence to believe it. It wasn't some emotional experience or something like that, but in the reliability of God's Word.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X