Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How can we know that God is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It doesn't stop her from trying.

    Sometime in the last 15 minutes, it occurred to me that Tassman's posts point to an interesting phenomenon.
    Paul doesn't know anything of the gospels (so 'tis said), so how do we account for his comments about Jesus appearing to Cephas and the twelve etc. That would have to be either a reference to the gospels, or to a source common to Paul and the gospel authors.
    She just did. Trying to use the trick employed by various supporters of this and that pseudoscience, namely pointing out that scientists tend to use words such as "likely" and "may" rather than words that express a definite level of certitude. Of course this relies on nobody realizing that all science is provisional, meaning it is open to change if new data comes along requiring it. That's why good scientists are loathe to say that something is "proof" or "proves" something. They leave proofs to the mathemagicians and alcohol.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      She just did. Trying to use the trick employed by various supporters of this and that pseudoscience, namely pointing out that scientists tend to use words such as "likely" and "may" rather than words that express a definite level of certitude. Of course this relies on nobody realizing that all science is provisional, meaning it is open to change if new data comes along requiring it. That's why good scientists are loathe to say that something is "proof" or "proves" something. They leave proofs to the mathemagicians and alcohol.
      The article's authors allow that other interpretations are possible, but express confidence that the body was that of a crucified person. For all ordinary purposes, that is good enough to qualify as substantiated.

      I think that the objections are reasonable where the conclusion doesn't indicate that sort of confidence.
      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 tabibito View Post
        The article's authors allow that other interpretations are possible, but express confidence that the body was that of a crucified person. For all ordinary purposes, that is good enough to qualify as substantiated.

        I think that the objections are reasonable where the conclusion doesn't indicate that sort of confidence.
        Any good researcher will mention any other possibilities that cannot be completely eliminated (often a very difficult proposition) even if all the evidence is pointing in a different direction.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Any good researcher will mention any other possibilities that cannot be completely eliminated (often a very difficult proposition) even if all the evidence is pointing in a different direction.
          That was H_A's complaint about Luke. He didn't mention any other possibilities, however remote they might have been, which demonstrates (in her estimation) that he had not researched his material.
          That assessment ignores the possibility of evidence being compelling enough to rule out other possibilities.
          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 Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            On the contrary from the actual archaeologists "but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion". Note the qualifications.

            These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.

            I mean, what part of this weren't you able to understand?

            All of science is provisional, meaning that any conclusion is open to reanalysis resulting in a different result if new facts come to light. IOW, every discovery awaits "future discussion."


            Hence, words like "may," "likely" and "suggests" are still frequently used even when something is virtually open and shut.


            Btw, where did you get the portion you cited because it is not at where you linked to. So where did it come from and who wrote it?

            Moderator Notice

            My apologies H_A. I edited your post rather than quoted and while usually I can restore the original this time I couldn't

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.


            [/QUOTE]

            [sarcasm intended] Bravo!

            As you have successfully deleted my reply I am at a loss to know as to what precisely you are referring.

            However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:

            Skeleton 4926 did not immediately stand out. The grave was one of seven within Cemetery D, all closely spaced but on a variety of alignments, with one of the other graves dug partly through an earlier one. Radiocarbon dating, carried out by SUERC, places 4926 at AD210–340 at 1σ (68.2% probability), or 130–360 at 2σ (95.4% probability). The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin.


            As I noted in that deleted reply - Bravo again! The alignment of the burial does not suggest it was Christian. The arrangement of the nails, which again the article notes, [for the intellectually challenged that can be found on page 28]:

            It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.


            That suggests that the nails may have been used to act as amulets - either to protect the corpse or to protect the community from the malign spirit of the corpse - but that, of course, cannot be known.

            Given the range of datings for the skeleton we cannot know the precise date at which the victim died. However, if at the upper range then Christianity was known in Britain, although the alignment of the body does not suggest a Christian burial. I would also point out that as yet this skeleton has not been positively confirmed as a crucified individual. Those findings will be published in a later article.

            As to your remark:

            These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.


            And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:

            but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion


            You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.

            So Bravo a third time

            Give yourself a cookie.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1380638]


              However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:


              These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.


              And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:

              but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion


              You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.

              So Bravo a third time

              Page 29 of that article puts the matter into perspective

              A man around 30 years old had been
              respectfully buried, possibly with a
              bier, but a nail through one of
              his heels is difficult to explain as
              anything other than evidence that
              he had been crucified. We will
              never know his name or the
              perceived offence for which he
              was apparently killed, but his story
              will be pondered by many more
              today than ever knew of him at the
              time he died.


              So once again you omit a critical relevant piece of information: in this case the conclusion, where it is noted that the authors of the write-up don't advance any reason other than crucifixion to explain what has been found. There might be some other reason, but they can't say what that might be. For ordinary purposes, it is reasonable to state that archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a crucified person who received honourable burial (pending information to the contrary).
              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 tabibito View Post

                It doesn't stop her from trying.

                Sometime in the last 15 minutes, it occurred to me that Tassman's posts point to an interesting phenomenon.
                Paul doesn't know anything of the gospels (so 'tis said), so how do we account for his comments about Jesus appearing to Cephas and the twelve etc. That would have to be either a reference to the gospels, or to a source common to Paul and the gospel authors.
                If Paul had spent fifteen days with the Peter as known in the Gospels, why don’t we find many references to the gospel stories in Paul’s letters? For instance, how come Paul never mentions the Empty Tomb on Easter morning—wouldn’t Peter have been eager to share that story? Something is seriously way off here.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post



                  Page 29 of that article puts the matter into perspective

                  A man around 30 years old had been
                  respectfully buried, possibly with a
                  bier, but a nail through one of
                  his heels is difficult to explain as
                  anything other than evidence that
                  he had been crucified. We will
                  never know his name or the
                  perceived offence for which he
                  was apparently killed, but his story
                  will be pondered by many more
                  today than ever knew of him at the
                  time he died.


                  So once again you omit a critical relevant piece of information: in this case the conclusion, where it is noted that the authors of the write-up don't advance any reason other than crucifixion to explain what has been found. There might be some other reason, but they can't say what that might be. For ordinary purposes, it is reasonable to state that archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a crucified person who received honourable burial (pending information to the contrary).
                  [sarcasm intended]Oh how nice to see you defending your pal. Are you another Tabaqui cosying up to the bigger beasts?

                  From the article it is still not an established fact that this individual was crucified. It is quite possible and I do not reject that possibility, but it has not yet been established. Can you comprehend that? Or is it too complex for you?

                  Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 05-27-2022, 04:32 PM.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post

                    If Paul had spent fifteen days with the Peter as known in the Gospels, why don’t we find many references to the gospel stories in Paul’s letters? For instance, how come Paul never mentions the Empty Tomb on Easter morning—wouldn’t Peter have been eager to share that story? Something is seriously way off here.
                    Paul states that Jesus died, revived, lived - that kind of necessitates an empty tomb. As has been stated before (repeatedly) Paul's letters are not gospels. They are not introducing Christianity, but addressing issues arising in communities that already know the basics. Paul does refer to the crucifixion and resurrection in a few places - and in at least one of those references, complains that the reminder is necessary.
                    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 tabibito View Post

                      Paul states that Jesus died, revived, lived - that kind of necessitates an empty tomb.
                      "revived"? That suggests he might not have actually been dead.

                      Cue Hugh Schonfield.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        "revived"? That suggests he might not have actually been dead.

                        Cue Hugh Schonfield.
                        Sure it does - that's why Paul first says that he died; and [sardonic] when a person revives from an illness that implies they might not have actually been sick.[/sardonic]
                        Last edited by tabibito; 05-27-2022, 05:54 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 Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                          [sarcasm intended] Bravo!

                          As you have successfully deleted my reply I am at a loss to know as to what precisely you are referring.

                          However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:

                          Skeleton 4926 did not immediately stand out. The grave was one of seven within Cemetery D, all closely spaced but on a variety of alignments, with one of the other graves dug partly through an earlier one. Radiocarbon dating, carried out by SUERC, places 4926 at AD210–340 at 1σ (68.2% probability), or 130–360 at 2σ (95.4% probability). The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin.


                          As I noted in that deleted reply - Bravo again! The alignment of the burial does not suggest it was Christian. The arrangement of the nails, which again the article notes, [for the intellectually challenged that can be found on page 28]:

                          It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.


                          That suggests that the nails may have been used to act as amulets - either to protect the corpse or to protect the community from the malign spirit of the corpse - but that, of course, cannot be known.

                          Given the range of datings for the skeleton we cannot know the precise date at which the victim died. However, if at the upper range then Christianity was known in Britain, although the alignment of the body does not suggest a Christian burial. I would also point out that as yet this skeleton has not been positively confirmed as a crucified individual. Those findings will be published in a later article.

                          As to your remark:

                          These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.


                          And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:

                          but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion


                          You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.

                          So Bravo a third time

                          Give yourself a cookie.
                          For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                          Wow. I need to delete more of your posts.


                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Sure it does - that's why Paul first says that he died; and [sardonic] when a person revives from an illness that implies they might not have actually been sick.[/sardonic]
                            A body cannot be "revived" after three days.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                              Wow. I need to delete more of your posts.

                              Let us all hope your poor eyesight permitted you to find the article... and read it!
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                A body cannot be "revived" after three days.
                                A fact that has been known for at least four thousand years, through every society that has existed in that time; some peoples did not build societies, and might not be included. Nonetheless, the Biblical records two such revivals, and more than a further two for which the amount of elapsed time was not recorded, but context indicates that at least a full day probably passed. Some doubt may legitimately be expressed regarding the veracity of the record of revivals other than the four.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 05-28-2022, 04:57 AM.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X