A "junk DNA" discussion

[tabibito]

But prophecy can be tricky, especially when those solely responsible for telling the tale have a strong vested interest in making the phrophecy "come true".

That would depend on the nature of the event concerned. With certain prophecies, the prophet would most likely be doing his level best to prevent the prophecy being fulfilled. The thing is - once a prophecy is fulfilled (noting the objection) where the person who prophesied can not possibly have influenced the outcome - however slight it might be, any miracle recorded in the Bible enters the realms of the "not impossible."

Historians tend to use a Bayesian approach. They consider the prior probability (that is, based on background information and what we know about how things work, how likely is the proposed event), and assign that a probability level. Then they look at the evidence as the modifying probability (that is, how reliable is the evidence, and how plausible are the various proposed explanations for the evidence). From here, they get an approximate probability that something actually occurred.

Of course, when dealing with the past we ALWAYS are in the realm of probabilities. The probability that the Roman Empire existed is very high. The probability that Caesar Augustus existed is nearly as high. This is because the wealth of various background information is quite extensive, because it is attested by multiple independent sources, and because it is entirely plausible. But how about the resurrection of Jesus? The probability that Jesus existed at all is estimated at somewhere between 1 in 2 and 1 in 10. The resurrection tales grew with the telling. Paul didn't even know about it! Paul didn't know Jesus was ever a corporeal person, since Paul only experienced Jesus in his mind. Paul knew nothing of Jesus' birth, his life, his appearance, his disciples. ALL of that was layered on later, by unknown authors who (unsually for the times) cited NONE of their sources. And of course, the documents that were preserved were those that served the theological purposes of those who preserved them -- and we know quite a bit was NOT preserved. No independent sources attest to any of this at all.

So do we have a documented event here? Well, we have the allegation of something fantastic, no known direct witnesses, tales about it that grow with the telling, written and preserved by those with a vested interest to do so. If this is not a prescription for fiction, nothing is.

It was Paul who said "if there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ is not risen: if Christ be not risen, our faith is void" - I have never seen any record of a question being raised about the authenticity of that and other statements attributed to Paul. So - on this one, I'd need references cited. The claim that Paul did not know any of the founding apostles is without any possible foundation.
Prior to AD 70, the sect of the Nazarene had no real influence outside the Palestine: it would be unreasonable to expect a great deal of documentary evidence outside of that district.

no known direct witnesses

I am suspicious of that claim, and certainly if it is extended to Jesus' direct disciples, the claim is (ahem) lacking in veracity. Details do include records of miracles attributed to Jesus (though claimed to be sorcerous) by his contemporary detractors, and the allegations made against him by those detractors. Dismissing the Jewish records as just another religious group's claims doesn't wash.

[phank]

It was Paul who said "if Christ be not resurrected, our faith is futile"

But Paul of course never met Christ.

- I have never seen any record of a question being raised about the authenticity of that and other statements attributed to Paul.

If we take Paul at face value (and he IS relating visions he had, not physical experiences), we know almost nothing about Jesus the person.

So - on this one, I'd need references cited.

But what sort of references would you find acceptable? For full detail, but as seen by a non-Christian, try here:

http://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Je...icity+of+jesus

Prior to AD 70, the sect of the Nazarene had no real influence outside the Palestine: it would be unreasonable to expect a great deal of documentary evidence outside of that district.
I am suspicious of that claim, and certainly if it is extended to Jesus' direct disciples, the claim is (ahem) lacking in veracity.

Paul never mentions any disciples, and does not appear to know about them, if they existed at all.

Details do include records of miracles attributed to Jesus

Let's be reasonable here. Jesus probably did not exist. Stories of his miracles parallel other myths of the times, all are at the very least third hand.

(though claimed to be sorcerous) by his contemporary detractors, and the allegations made against him by those detractors. Dismissing the Jewish records as just another religious group's claims doesn't wash.

But all we have is claims. We have to decide if those claims pass the smell test. And if we set aside our ONLY source for those claims, we are left with nothing. And that sole source is well known to have been heavily edited, embellished, modified, and redacted by those with a strong vested interest in preserving their theology. The claims themselves border on preposterous, no more plausible than the tales of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. Those tales were written down, but they are not "records"
in any rational sense.

[Method]

Assuming that you could identify and locate the yacht, some of that might be possible, yes.

The point being that you don't quit right away and just assume that a past event would not leave evidence.

No - I'm pointing out that a supernatural event would need to leave a permanent or at least lingering record.

Why couldn't the supernatural produce such evidence given that humans produce such evidence all of the time?

Blighting a tree - how would science determine that it was done supernaturally and not naturally?

The same way that science determines if a tree was killed by wind or by beetles. You look at the evidence.

Why would a supernatural process never leave evidence?

Distinguishing supernatural from natural, when the Christian God is involved, is a matter of prior announcement of the event in question. For the most part, later investigation is not going to determine whether the event was touched off by God.

Why not?

[tabibito]

Distinguishing supernatural from natural, when the Christian God is involved, is a matter of prior announcement of the event in question. For the most part, later investigation is not going to determine whether the event was touched off by God.

Why not?

Just a quick run through of a few miracles described, associated with Jesus' ministry:
Water turns into wine - possible scientific verification after the event?
A few thousand people get fed from a few loaves and small fish - what evidence can be ascertained scientifically? Certainly not the left over scraps - they attest to large quantities of bread and fish.
Blighting a fig tree - a healthy tree in the morning was completely blasted by the evening ... could that be determined scientifically a week after the event? Highly unlikely.
Walking on water - possible of verification after the event? Footprints perhaps?
Stilling the wind and waves of a storm - how would any scientific test distinguish that from a natural, if sudden, cessation?
Very few miracles are likely to leave a trace, and even fewer will be certain to leave a trace.
Resurrection of Lazarus - more than 72 hours elapsed from the time of his death. Never mind that a person in a coma will not survive without medical intervention for that long - Scientific investigation would only show a healthy living person.

Contrary to rumour, according to which anything and everything that is not understood can be written off as a miracle, the Judeo/Christian religion implicitly* denies that a miracle occurs unexpectedly to everyone. (though it may on rare occasion be unexpected to the first party witness.)

* Actually, it is explicitly stated; but only by one witness, so it doesn't meet required standard for assertion as fact.

[tabibito]

But Paul of course never met Christ.

And I never met Robin Williams.

If we take Paul at face value (and he IS relating visions he had, not physical experiences), we know almost nothing about Jesus the person.

Why would Paul's focus be on someone he never met? The epistles generally, regardless of who wrote them, don't spend a lot of time on the actual life of the man, Jesus.

But what sort of references would you find acceptable? For full detail, but as seen by a non-Christian, try here:

I'll check what they have to say about the Biblical record against the Bible itself to start with. What happens after depends on the outcome of the comparison.

Paul never mentions any disciples, and does not appear to know about them, if they existed at all.

Outright false. Cephas, John, and James the Lord's brother, are mentioned by name, and "the other apostles" mentioned in passing.

Let's be reasonable here. Jesus probably did not exist.

A person named Jesus, itinerant preacher and accused sorcerer, leading the people astray (heretic promoting foreign gods), son of Mary and a Roman soldier (either unnamed or Pantera) did exist according to Jewish records.

Stories of his miracles parallel other myths of the times, all are at the very least third hand.

There is a certain limited conciliance on a scant few points.

But all we have is claims. We have to decide if those claims pass the smell test.

The only things that make it possible for those claims to pass the smell test are miracles or prophecy in the here and now.

And if we set aside our ONLY source for those claims, we are left with nothing.

Nope. Hostile Jewish records from the time also exist.

And that sole source is well known to have been heavily edited, embellished, modified, and redacted by those with a strong vested interest in preserving their theology.

That claim is supportable for certain sections - by no means the majority of those records.

The claims themselves border on preposterous.

Only "border on the preposterous"? The only thing that makes them believable to me is that I have seen a few small things that show the preposterous actually can have happened.

[Method]

Just a quick run through of a few miracles described, associated with Jesus' ministry:

In general, why can't supernatural leave evidence?

Water turns into wine - possible scientific verification after the event?

You measure what goes in or out of the water. You certainly wouldn't expect to see DNA from yeast that were never used to ferment the wine, so there are ways to differentiate the supernatural from the natural. Just this one event is easily detectable as being supernatural. The same for the rest.

Contrary to rumour, according to which anything and everything that is not understood can be written off as a miracle, the Judeo/Christian religion implicitly* denies that a miracle occurs unexpectedly to everyone. (though it may on rare occasion be unexpected to the first party witness.)

Then perhaps we shouldn't be hearing of so many christians claiming that a miracle happened to them.

Even more, they claim to see the hands of God working in their day to day lives. Where is the evidence?

[Cerebrum123]

But Paul of course never met Christ.

Wrong. His Damascus Road experience was certainly meeting Christ, it was not a vision either. He was blinded by the event, and others heard some of this encounter.

Acts 9:65 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

If we take Paul at face value (and he IS relating visions he had, not physical experiences), we know almost nothing about Jesus the person.

Wrong, see above. Also, Paul is not the only source we have about Jesus.

But what sort of references would you find acceptable? For full detail, but as seen by a non-Christian, try here:

http://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Je...icity+of+jesus

I thought you were the kind that cared about stuff like scholarly research. Carrier is a laughingstock as far as NT History is concerned.

Paul never mentions any disciples, and does not appear to know about them, if they existed at all.

This is untrue, as tabibito pointed out.

1 Corinthians 15:6-8New International Version (NIV)

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Galatians 2:9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Let's be reasonable here. Jesus probably did not exist. Stories of his miracles parallel other myths of the times, all are at the very least third hand.

Um, 1 You're not being reasonable, which is clear by the fact you wrote that second sentence there, 2 The "parallels" are extremely strained at best, and downright false at worst(which is most often actually), and 3 Um, come again? That's actually not true. If you apply the same standard of authorship to the Gospels as to other ancient secular works, you would come to the conclusion that there are eyewitness testimonies among them, and second hand testimony among them. Certainly not third hand though.

More detail about eyewitness accounts here.

Tacitus is a prime example. With him we get a much later explicit attribution to him by others, yet he is still accepted as the author of his works. So we actually have better attribution than many accepted secular works.

An article that goes into detail on that here.

But all we have is claims. We have to decide if those claims pass the smell test. And if we set aside our ONLY source for those claims, we are left with nothing. And that sole source is well known to have been heavily edited, embellished, modified, and redacted by those with a strong vested interest in preserving their theology. The claims themselves border on preposterous, no more plausible than the tales of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. Those tales were written down, but they are not "records"
in any rational sense.

I thought that personal incredulity wasn't supposed to be considered a real argument here?

Also the "heavily edited, embellished, modified, and redacted" is just untrue. With what we have now we are more accurate to the originals than ever with all the manuscript evidence available. What has been changed is already known, like the ending of Mark. In fact, Eusebius points out the fact that it's not in "accurate" copies of Mark, and missing from "almost all" manuscripts.

A closer look here.http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.php

Basically, you are peddling PRATT's here. I thought you didn't like people doing that?

[phank]

The only thing that makes them believable to me is that I have seen a few small things that show the preposterous actually can have happened.

But those things you have seen have natural explanations, and you don't need to cobble up a bunch of gods and miracles. Of course, you CAN cobble up gods and miracles if you wish, but they are not required to explain anything at all. Your own gullibility doesn't mean gods and miracles are required to explain unusual events either.

But I will admit that late-night TV is filled with ghost tales ("celebrity ghost stories" are more interesting, being full of celebrities), haunted houses, returns from the dead, and other sheer woo, and apparently the number of suckers who swallow that stuff represent a market. And if that many people are that ignorant in today's world, I have no difficulty imagining people swallowing just about any tales of miracles back before the age of verification. There's probably a market for those TV shows because the people watching are exactly calculated to fall for the ads.

[phank]

Wrong. His Damascus Road experience was certainly meeting Christ, it was not a vision either. He was blinded by the event, and others heard some of this encounter.

Acts 9:65 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

And, uh, where was the physical Jesus in this tale? The only ones with eyes to see, saw nothing. Not a word about a physical Jesus.

Note also that the book of Acts was written by "Luke", who wrote one of the most embellished gospels, taking Mark and a healthy amount of creative licence. Utterly unreliable. If you wish to be persuasive, you can't keep citing a single unreliable reference. Use material OUTSIDE the bible. Otherwise, you are like someone claiming there are talking mice, and insisting on using ONLY Aesop's fables as your source. It's entirely circular. Don't you realize you are using the source of your errors to validate those selfsame errors? Doesn't that bother you even a little?

I thought you were the kind that cared about stuff like scholarly research. Carrier is a laughingstock as far as NT History is concerned.

Carrier is one of the best informed and widely respected historians of the period, who has done extensive study. But I already warned that someone going into full detail and including ALL sources, would be rejected by the Faithful out of hand. Here, you show yourself more biased than I am. At least I have read multiple sources with an open mind.

But you make it clear that you have no use for anything that doesn't stroke your indoctrination. I'll continue to read a variety of sources. You can pray yourself even sillier, if possible.

[phank]

Along these same (very off-topic lines, but junk DNA seems to have been forgotten anyway), here's an interesting book review of Ehrman's book:

http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

[tabibito]

But those things you have seen have natural explanations, and you don't need to cobble up a bunch of gods and miracles. Of course, you CAN cobble up gods and miracles if you wish, but they are not required to explain anything at all. Your own gullibility doesn't mean gods and miracles are required to explain unusual events either.

Many claim that they have natural explanations. It's called presupposition. Note the rider - the witnesses (or at least someone else) have to know enough about them in advance before they can be counted as miracles.

[tabibito]

Otherwise, you are like someone claiming there are talking mice, and insisting on using ONLY Aesop's fables as your source. It's entirely circular. Don't you realize you are using the source of your errors to validate those selfsame errors? Doesn't that bother you even a little?

The Bible is a compendium of books by different authors. There is no single book here - rejecting testimony of a variety of authors' works as independent on grounds that they all come from the same publishing house would be equally valid.

Note also that the book of Acts was written by "Luke", who wrote one of the most embellished gospels

Actually - if anyone is at risk of that criticism, it would be Matthew.

As to Carrier - Maybe he does have something to say that isn't laughable. Even a blind pig can occasionally find a truffle, so his comments need to be examined.

A reasonable write-up, by a non-deist, can be found here

[tabibito]

In general, why can't supernatural leave evidence?
You measure what goes in or out of the water. You certainly wouldn't expect to see DNA from yeast that were never used to ferment the wine, so there are ways to differentiate the supernatural from the natural. Just this one event is easily detectable as being supernatural. The same for the rest.

That would depend on whether wine is supposed to have remnants of fermenting agents in it or whether it can be called wine if it is demonstrably different from wine. Maybe if the event were to be duplicated, a sample could be tested. In the time, it couldn't - and given that it was the result of a decision, not the result of a natural process, the only way it could be duplicated would be if that same decision were made again.

Assuming that a sample was available, tested, and shown to have no known natural origin, what would be the outcome? People who don't want to believe would declare that the test results were falsified by a bunch of frauds, or perhaps that the results arose from flawed methodology. People would be declaring that the test results were valid. And the people on the side-lines would be basing their opinions on their preferences. There is nothing that can be done to make a bonafide miracle acceptable evidence to anyone except (for the most part) the direct witnesses.

Produce a full grown tree with no growth rings: some would say it was a hoax, some would say it was a perfectly natural occurrence the explanation for which is currently unknown, some would say it was a miracle - almost no-one's basic opinion would be changed by the event.

Then perhaps we shouldn't be hearing of so many christians claiming that a miracle happened to them.

Even more, they claim to see the hands of God working in their day to day lives. Where is the evidence?

Agreed. Neither should they be saying that a person who is in difficulty has in some way offended God, but they do.
Though it is also true that being thankful to God for whatever joy might exist in a person's life is wholly appropriate.

[phank]

The Bible is a compendium of books by different authors. There is no single book here - rejecting testimony of a variety of authors' works as independent on grounds that they all come from the same publishing house would be equally valid.

Many people have written Sherlock Holmes mysteries. So we can confidently conclude that Holmes was a real person, right?

As to Carrier - Maybe he does have something to say that isn't laughable. Even a blind pig can occasionally find a truffle, so his comments need to be examined.

But how good is your examination if you start with the assumption that he's a blind pig? He doesn't do "comments", he does rigorous Bayesian analysis of all of the available material.

A reasonable write-up, by a non-deist, can be found here

Interestingly, this author admits he "feels" that Christ must have existed. And he may be right. Carrier lays out the best possible case for a historical Christ, and also the bare bones essence of that case, in his latest book. Maybe he's wrong, but he is not a blind pig. Bart Ehrman is also not a blind pig, but interestingly Ehrman started out as a believer, and while his admittedly exhaustive examination of the evidence leads him to doubt every bit of the biblical tales, he still can't quite let go of his conviction that it doesn't matter, Christ MUST have been real.

Please follow the link and read the review in post #160. At the very least, it's entertaining.

[phank]

That would depend on whether wine is supposed to have remnants of fermenting agents in it or whether it can be called wine if it is demonstrably different from wine.

Most proximately, that would depend on whether this event ever happened at all. Since accounts of it were only invented generations after the supposed event, based on sources (if any) relentlessly unspecified, we meet all the requirements for outright fiction.

Much better to select a miracle of recent vintage, where enough forensic evidence exists for an evaluation to be based on more than faith and belief. Except of course we do not HAVE any such recent miracles, since miracles mysteriously dried up concurrently with the practice of investigating them rather than simply swallowing them.