Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #127]

I'm claiming that I have at least a sizeable fraction of the special knowledge that most biologists have, of whom only 5.5% believe in God.

What do these biologists believe is not relevant? People are free to believe anything they wish. What they cannot do is describe how life came into existence, and that is the issue. They may like to believe that inanimate matter brought animate matter or life into existence, but that is only a belief.

I can say that there are no gods with the same certainty that I can say that there are no giraffes in my home. With more certainty, in fact; I have very good reasons to believe that giraffes exist elsewhere, so there is a nonzero chance that one wandered in when I wasn't looking.

I understand your desperate need for misdirection, but whether giraffes are in your home differs from our discussion. Why are there giraffes? Where did life come from? Where did the universe come from? And these are not the only open questions. There are many more. Another one is where the Earth came from because the mechanism for accretion is an open question. Science is not your friend in this debate. Because of the nature of the open questions in science, it is impossible for you or anyone else to declare that there is no God because you do not know. It is simply something that you hope for.

I don't believe that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in my wallet, either, but I certainly don't have to hope that there isn't. I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, especially when the bartender and I start laughing about how I should spend the money when I win. Even though I hope I do win the jackpot, I can be pretty certain that I won't and the odds of gods being real are orders of magnitude lower than that. Whether I hope or not, I still won't win the lottery and there still are no gods.

If we are talking straight probability. With the problems in cosmology and the kinds and number of open questions in science, the probability that God exists is much higher than the probability that He does not exist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #129]

T^his is a common fallacy - appeal to unknown. Wat is unknown is unknown. It is not a gap for ago m(name your own, anyway). What is knopwn or at least as far as we know it, has not provided good evidence for a god, and rather evidence that a god is not necessary.

That is exactly correct, which is precisely what I am pointing out. There is no good evidence for methodological naturalism, and the fact that it is unknown makes it less likely. Methodological naturalism believes there should be a long chain of events from action to the ultimate cause. Any unknown in science breaks that chain of events and, therefore, would nullify methodological naturalism. One could say because there are unknowns, there would be proof that there is a God.

Another common logical error of theism. The burden of proof is on the god - claim, not for doubters, scientists or atheists to prove that it doesn't.

Again, those who believe in methodological naturalism must demonstrate that there is a long causal chain of events to the first cause in the universe. Since methodological naturalism cannot demonstrate this long chain of causal events, those who believe in methodological naturalism are committing the same fallacy that you say those who believe in God are committing.

The answers to unknowns such as cosmic origins, the unproven theory of the origins of life, or even the disputed origin of consciousness (which I don't consider a difficulty anyway) are Unknown, not 'God'.

You are correct; it is unknown. Therefore, you cannot fill that space with methodological naturalism. You may believe that methodological naturalism will fill that unknown space, but until it happens, that is your belief. Especially in recent years, the "unknown" space has grown larger, not smaller. So, there is even more evidence that methodological naturalism does not describe ultimate reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #129]

T^his is a common fallacy - appeal to unknown. Wat is unknown is unknown. It is not a gap for ago m(name your own, anyway). What is knopwn or at least as far as we know it, has not provided good evidence for a god, and rather evidence that a god is not necessary.

That is exactly correct, which is precisely what I am pointing out. There is no good evidence for methodological naturalism, and the fact that it is unknown makes it less likely. Methodological naturalism believes there should be a long chain of events from action to the ultimate cause. Any unknown in science breaks that chain of events and, therefore, would nullify methodological naturalism. One could say because there are unknowns, there would be proof that there is a God.

Another common logical error of theism. The burden of proof is on the god - claim, not for doubters, scientists or atheists to prove that it doesn't.

Again, those who believe in methodological naturalism must demonstrate that there is a long causal chain of events to the first cause in the universe. Since methodological naturalism cannot demonstrate this long chain of causal events, those who believe in methodological naturalism are committing the same fallacy that you say those who believe in God are committing.

The answers to unknowns such as cosmic origins, the unproven theory of the origins of life, or even the disputed origin of consciousness (which I don't consider a difficulty anyway) are Unknown, not 'God'.

You are correct; it is unknown. Therefore, you cannot fill that space with methodological naturalism. You may believe that methodological naturalism will fill that unknown space, but until it happens, that is your belief. Especially in recent years, the "unknown" space has grown larger, not smaller. So, there is even more evidence that methodological naturalism does not describe ultimate reality.

Nor can you fill it with anything else. Unknown is unknown.

But what you are forgetting is what is called the materialist default, which is that what is known does not demonstrate a god, thus materialism or naturalism had a reasonable claim that whatever the explanation for the - as yet - unknowns, is likely to be natural or material, and not some supernatural explanation.

Thus while unknowns remain i unknown a material explanation is the go - to hypothesis.

Besides which, these are really academic. Cosmic Life or consciousness origins do not make more than an academic hypothesis either way. They do not alter what we do know, which does not demonstrate a spiritual, supernatural or divine input into anything.

And, since you quote this:When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod I can only observe that I don't recall 'atheists' doing any such thing. As i recall it was refusal to accept the same answer this atheist gave - that the Theist hypothesis of cosmic origins made more problems (logical entities) than the materialist argument did, that let the discussion being dropped. The claim that someone ran away and that somehow proves them wring is as incorrect as the claim that if Materialism cannot prove an answer, some theist claim must be the default.

[Difflugia]

I'm claiming that I have at least a sizeable fraction of the special knowledge that most biologists have, of whom only 5.5% believe in God.

What do these biologists believe is not relevant? People are free to believe anything they wish.

You're the one that seemed to think it was important when you asked the question I answered. Pick a lane.

What they cannot do is describe how life came into existence, and that is the issue.

I thought the issue was how I'm using the words "divine" and "divinity."

They may like to believe that inanimate matter brought animate matter or life into existence, but that is only a belief.

Sure. It's based on evidence and experimentation, but it's a belief.

I understand your desperate need for misdirection,

And I understand the psychology of projection.

but whether giraffes are in your home differs from our discussion.

As an analogy, I could have used any number of things. Perhaps a better analogy would be ewoks because both gods and ewoks are made up.

Why are there giraffes? Where did life come from? Where did the universe come from?

You were saying something about misdirection? We were talking about whether the concept of divinity can properly refer to your made-up god.

And these are not the only open questions. There are many more. Another one is where the Earth came from because the mechanism for accretion is an open question. Science is not your friend in this debate. Because of the nature of the open questions in science, it is impossible for you or anyone else to declare that there is no God because you do not know. It is simply something that you hope for.

Even if scientists are wrong about everything, gods are still made up. I don't think scientists are that wrong and I've talked to you enough to know that I should double-check anything that you claim no matter how confident you sound, but I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument that they are. That still doesn't improve your position. Something made-up doesn't become more likely no matter how bad other explanations are.

If we are talking straight probability. With the problems in cosmology and the kinds and number of open questions in science, the probability that God exists is much higher than the probability that He does not exist.

No. As a made-up solution to the problem, the probability of gods existing is effectively zero. It's not actually zero in a philosophical sense because anything is possible, but it's arbitrarily close to zero. It asymptotically approaches zero. It's zero to as many decimal places as you care to name. It shares the same probability space as things like leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy.

Even if, again, we accept for the sake of argument that you're right about "the problems in cosmology" or whatever, that doesn't increase the probability of any given made-up explanation. The bulk of the probability space is taken up by things for which we have evidence. Whatever space is left over, however much that is, is shared by the infinitely many made-up explanations for which we have no evidence, including gods. No matter how much space they collectively fill, the probability of any given one still asymptotically approaches zero.

And yet, somehow, everyone else seems to know what I mean about the New Testament offering a relationship with the divine. If you still don't, maybe I can help you understand. If you understand what I mean, but just don't like the word I used, maybe you can suggest another one for when I'm talking to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #114]

We're talking about what foks claim, period.

Well, no! We are talking about the claims, along with facts and evidence which has convinced most all scholars (even those who are not Christian) that these folks were truly convinced in what they report.

Your whole argument seems to revolve around special pleading, that what Christians believed in the first century is somehow qualitatively different than what they believe now.

Oh, but there is a difference. There may not be a difference in what we believe, but there is a difference in how we came to believe. The early disciples came to believe because they were convinced, they had seen Jesus alive after death. I have not witnessed Jesus alive. Rather, I have become convinced by sitting down in order to think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. After going through this, I have become convinced by the reports, but I also came away understanding that there are no easy answers as a lot of folks make it out to be on both sides.

The "facts and evidence" are the claims themselves. That's it.

I am afraid there is a lot more to it. Again, it is these claims along with the facts and evidence we have, which has convinced most scholars that these folks truly believed what they were claiming. This sort of thing demands an explanation, and again, there are no easy answers.

I'm convinced based on facts and evidence that modern Christians sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead, too.

You and I differ here in that I am convinced by the facts and evidence that most modern Christians do not at all "sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead". Most modern Christians really have no idea what they believe, nor why they believe as they do. Most modern Christians were brought up in the Church, and have never really thought through what they believe, nor why they believe it. They are what is called, "cultural Christians". In other words, "it was good enough for mom and dad, and it is good enough for me". The difference between the overwhelming majority of modern Christians today, as opposed to the early disciples is the fact that the early disciples believed what they saw, and we have the facts and evidence to demonstrate this.

You haven't established this.

My friend, all you have to do is to take a look at the life of Paul. We can know beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul was dragging Christians off to prison, and even consenting to the death penalty. Certainly, you are not going to attempt to argue that the Jewish authorities would not be violently opposed to what the Christians were proclaiming. I mean, we know for a fact that it was the Jewish authorities who were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, (which demonstrates they were violently opposed) and you would have us believe they were fine with those who were claiming he had rose from the dead? Be for real.

This shows that you don't understand the argument. Because scholars are convinced that early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection. That's not the resurrection account specific to any of our Gospels and you don't get to drag the empty tomb along with it.

Oh, but I do get to drag the empty tomb along. Because you see, the scholars have become convinced these folks truly believed what they saw, and the only place they could have become convinced of this, is by reading what has been contained in the Bible, and guess what is contained in this material? That's right, an empty tomb. So yeah, I get to drag the empty tomb along, but the reality is, I am not really dragging it along, because it is reported. This means we have evidence for the empty tomb, and what I need is some sort of facts and evidence that the report of the empty tomb is not accurate. Because here is the thing, we have very strong evidence that the author who addressed Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. Not only do we have this evidence, but we also have very good evidence the author was actually Luke. With this being the case, we have very good evidence that we have an author who is alive at the time of the events he records, and guess what? He reports on an empty tomb. My friend, this is evidence of the empty tomb, and what I need is some sort of evidence the tomb was not empty. Should I take your word for it? Well, no I cannot, because you have no idea. We have evidence the tomb was empty. What would be the evidence that it was not? Give me something.

All you have is the scholarly opinion that the disciples believed in a resurrection of some kind. If that's not enough, you need a different argument.

GOOD GRIEF! How in the world did these scholars become convinced of such a thing? That would be by reading what is contained in the Bible. This same Bible reports an empty tomb. So, we can be convinced these folks truly believed what they reported, but we cannot believe the reports of the empty tomb? What kind of sense would it make to be convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, when the tomb still held the body? I mean, the Jewish authorities would have laughed them out of the country. The claim of a resurrection, without an empty tomb, makes no kind of sense. I mean, even when we go to 1 Corinthians chapter 15, where people want to claim that Paul was only referring to a spiritual resurrection, he actually refers to Jesus being buried and resurrected. My friend, if Paul was only referring to a spiritual resurrection, then why would one have to mention the burial? Where was he buried? Where was he raised from? The point is, if Paul was only talking about some sort of spiritual resurrection, there would have been no need to bring up the burial, since this would have been pointless. Rather, Paul would have said, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" leaving the burial out of the equation, because the burial would have nothing to do with it, since the body was still there.

Now, let us think about this. We have already talked about how we have very strong evidence the author who addressed Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul. We know the author who addressed Theophilus reported upon an empty tomb, and somehow, we are to believe that Paul converted to Christianity after being completely opposed to it, based upon a resurrection without an empty tomb? CO'MON MAN! This is simply desperation, and this desperation comes out when there are those who want to insist the author who addressed Theophilus was using the meaning of the name to address a wider audience, even though this Theophilus is addressed as "Most Excellent". It is called, deny, deny, deny. We have every reason to believe that Theophilus was an individual, and we have every reason to believe the author traveled with Paul, and we have every reason to believe the author was indeed Luke. What evidence do we have this would not be the case? In order for one to believe the author of Luke, and Acts was not a traveling companion of Paul, one would have to twist the mind in ways they would never do with any other sort of material.

That's right. The same is true about the claims of early Christians, though.

No, because even as you yourself admit, we have evidence surrounding the claims, which demonstrates these folks were convinced in what they saw. Moreover, we are not simply talking about one who gets on youtube today. Rather, we are talking about the fact that we have very strong evidence that hundreds of people were claiming to have witnessed the same event, with facts and evidence these folks live out the rest of their lives proclaiming this event going through persecution to do so. That hardly compares to those today who get on youtube in order to drum up views, and likes.

You haven't established that the disciples claimed otherwises

The above is established by the facts. Where in the world do we see the claim of an empty tomb? That would be in what we call the Gospels. Where are the scholars getting the information that leads them to believe these folks were convinced in what they saw? Again, that would be the Gospels. Since this is the case, then how in the world do we get to leave out the empty tomb which is right there? Again, we have the evidence of an empty tomb. What is the evidence the tomb was not empty? I guess you ignored the part of where I promised to read the book by Ehrman, if you could demonstrate where he takes a stand? I guess this means I do not have to tell my wife to order the book. The fact of the matter is it is from the Gospels that Ehrman is forced to admit the evidence demands that these folks were convinced in what they saw. I can assure you that Ehrman would rather not have to admit such a thing, but as we know, the evidence demands it.

or that a claim of spiritual resurrection wouldn't have "gained ... traction.

Again, we have the reports of an empty tomb, and the Jewish authorities, along with everyone else, would have laughed these folks out of town, with a report of a resurrection which had no empty tomb. Of course, we all know this is what you will have to do, and it is called, "desperation". In other words, when the facts and evidence begin to mount, you simply deny what we can know. We do indeed have evidence of the empty tomb. What evidence do we have that it was not? However, in the end it really does not matter as far as my argument is concerned. You will continue to insist we cannot know if the tomb was empty, but we certainly have reasons to believe that it was, and I see no reason to believe that it was not.

You're inventing evidence and saying that it's somehow part of the narrow claim attributed to scholars.

My friend, by using the word "narrow" you are attempting to pretend that this is not a huge concession by the scholars. However, what these concessions tell us is there is a whole lot we can know by reading the material contained in the NT, and we do not even have to establish that the material is reliable. We can know that Jesus was crucified, we can know he was dead, we can know he was buried in a tomb, and we can know his followers were truly convinced he was raised, and we can know that there would have been no reason to mention the tomb, if we were only talking about a spiritual resurrection. This applies as well to the testimony of Paul to the Corinthians. Paul says that Jesus was buried. Well, where would he be buried? Paul says Jesus was raised. Well, where would Jesus be raised from? That would be a tomb. Again, there would be no need in bringing in the burial, if we are only talking about a spiritual resurrection. We all know why you are forced to question the empty tomb. However, we have reasons to believe the tomb was empty, and no reason to believe that it was not.

And they do.

Correct! There are many folks who dream up mystical experiences. However, bringing this up, does not in any way demonstrate that this is what we are dealing with as far as the reports in the NT.

And apparently did.

This would be to suggest that it is "apparent" that the early disciples "dreamed up" the experience of seeing Jesus alive after death. This goes against the idea that they were truly convinced in what they saw. Again, most all scholars believe it to be "apparent" that the early followers were convinced in what they saw. If these scholars are correct, this is a huge concession. This is the sort of evidence which demands an explanation. I mean, think about it? If this is the case, then this would mean we can eliminate the idea the early followers were responsible for the disappearance of the body. In other words, the early followers were not involved in some sort of hoax. Again, if this is the case, then one has to explain the events surrounding the resurrection claims, and it is not going to do any good to attempt to compare these events to any sort of religion, because there is no religion which compares as far as the historical evidence is concerned.

My friend, if you are attempting to make the argument that there are reasons to doubt the claims, then you are wasting your time, because I am not insisting there would be no reasons for doubt. However, if you are attempting to make the argument there would be no reasons to believe the claims, then your argument is failing badly, because of the evidence involved, and it is this evidence which has convinced most scholars that the early followers were convinced in what they saw. You are definitely on the losing side of the argument if you are attempting to sell the idea that it is a "no brainer".

You're again conflating the disciples believing in some sort of resurrection with the New Testament being in any way reliable. Even if we agree to the first for the sake of argument, you haven't established the second.

I do not have to establish that the NT is reliable. My friend, there are certain things we can know to be true, by reading material we do not consider to be reliable. This is demonstrated by the fact that most all scholars are convinced the early followers truly believed they had witnessed the risen Christ, and a good number of these scholars do not consider the material to be reliable. This is exactly what historians do. They read ancient letters, some of which contain events the historian does not believe to be reliable, but we are convinced of certain ancient events by reading material we do not believe to be completely reliable. Allow me to give you some examples.

There are scholars who do not believe the NT to be reliable, but it is from the NT that these scholars are certain that Jesus was a real historical figure who got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified. Moreover, it is from this same NT that we can be certain of a man named Paul who was responsible for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. These are just a couple of things we can be certain about by reading the NT and we do not have to consider the NT to be reliable in order to know these things to be true, and for one to deny that we can know these things would be to commit intellectual suicide.

Yes. But if, like the New Testament, all we have is the story, then it's pretty reasonable to be skeptical.

Again, you will get no argument from me. I have no problem with those who are skeptical. In fact, I would suggest that we all need to be skeptical. I continue to read the Bible with a skeptical attitude, and this skeptical reading is one of the main reasons I have become convinced in what it is I believe. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist there would be no reasons to believe the claims, and act as if it is a "no brainer". As I have said, there are no easy answers, and for one to be under the impression that it is all so simple, is for one to be in a fantasy world. It is true there are a whole lot of Christians in a fantasy world, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts and evidence we have surrounding the claims of the resurrection.

Yes. There are multiple stories about a resurrection that take different forms. Paul's potentially spiritual resurrection, Mark's apparently direct translation to heaven, Matthew's and Luke's bodily resurrections and transfigurations, and John's resurrection into a body that was difficult to recognize as Jesus have together convinced scholars that the disciples believed in some kind of resurrection. They're all different, though, so they don't say what kind and whether it was material or spiritual, let alone that it fits any one Gospel story or any harmonization of them. The only thing extraordinary about the stories is that there's enough of a common theme that scholars think they can find a common thread of belief.

Allow me to share with you some things you seem to be missing. You are complaining about the differences in the reports. However, there are others who complain that the reports are so closely aligned that the authors must and had to copy each other. So then, if the reports differ in any way, then they must and have to be false, but if they report the same events in the same way, then this is evidence the reports are false. What exactly would we expect from different sources reporting on the same events? Would we expect them all to report the same events in the same exact way? Would we expect there to be differences in the reports? What we have is those reporting on the same events in the same way, while we have differences in other reports, and we have some reporting on events others leave out, and this seems to be exactly what we would expect from different sources reporting upon the same events.

You also seem to be missing the fact that we do not need to establish the material to be reliable in order to understand there are some things we can be certain about, and there is a whole lot we can be certain about by reading this material which may not be reliable. We cannot be certain about the resurrection, but we can indeed be certain there is very good evidence surrounding the resurrection claims.

And thus the difference in our approaches. I guarantee that scholars disagree with you, too.

Again, as George Canning had to say, "I can prove anything by statistics except the truth". The point is, if one is looking for the truth, the probabilities have nothing to do with it.

This is the essence of special pleading.

It is not special pleading my friend, it is simply a fact.

Yes. Like children and Santa Claus. Or maybe like Tolkien and Hobbits.

The above is a sure sign that one has left the "real world". There are no scholars dedicating their life to the study of the evidence surrounding the claim of Santa, but there are a whole lot of scholars who dedicate their life to the study of the evidence surrounding the resurrection, and it is the study of this evidence which has convinced them that the early followers were convinced in what they report. There are no serious scholars of the evidence surrounding the resurrection who would ever make such a comparison, because they understand just how silly it would be, and they would be out of a job. However, it is certainly easy for one to make such a comparison when nothing is on the line.

No? Why? Are they different orders of impossible?

There are not "different orders of impossible" but there are indeed different orders of evidence, and this is the reason there are no scholars who dedicate their life to the study of Santa, while there are many who do just that with the evidence surrounding the resurrection. In other words, the one is a serious study of the facts and evidence we have, while the other is just plain silly.

That's hard to do when you haven't given us any.

You continue to shoot yourself in the foot. We have enough evidence to know that Jesus was a real person. We have enough evidence to know that he had followers. We have enough evidence to know he was crucified. We have enough evidence to know there were those who were claiming he was alive after the crucifixion. We have enough evidence to convince most all scholars that the early followers were convinced in what they report. This is just part of the evidence we have, and what I need is some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have which does not include a resurrection.

You're right. People have actually seen Santa. No such evidence exists for the resurrection.

You seem to think that I'm being hyperbolic here or something. The only evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the stories in the New Testament. I'm convinced that Paul had visions and the Gospels are allegorical fiction.

The above is so silly that it does not deserve a response, and this is too easy to demonstrate. You can be convinced of anything you wish, but this does not in any way demonstrate that what you are convinced of is fact. We have enough facts and evidence concerning the resurrection that it needs some sort of explanation. As far as I am aware, there are no explanation of the facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection, that can explain all the facts and evidence we have which would not include the extraordinary, and you want to act as if, we have no evidence. I mean, give me some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have surrounding the resurrection which would explain all the evidence we have which does not include the extraordinary.

I assure you that I do. Whether I'm right or wrong, if you can't wrap your head around why I do, then I assert that you don't fully understand the state of the evidence.

Oh! I understand the state of the evidence very well, and it is because of the evidence we have that no serious scholar would want to ruin their reputation by making a comparison of the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection to Santa because they would be out of a job. That my friend, is the "state of the evidence".

Maybe. If I have, I'd hardly be in a position to know, would I? On the other hand, I think I'm at least statistically on intellectually safer ground thinking that the Gospels are fiction than thinking that a resurrection actually happened.

Do you actually believe it to be a sound argument to refer to what you believe to be "safer ground"? I can assure you that you are not on stable ground by believing the Gospels to be fiction. Again, it is from these reports that most all scholars are convinced the early followers believed what they saw. This alone demonstrates it is not in any way fiction. Rather, it demonstrates at the very least, these folks were reporting what they believed to be fact. If you do not believe the scholars to be correct, then what we would need is some sort of explanation of the facts we have which could explain exactly what occurred which would not include the extraordinary.

This is absolutely a serious discussion. The probabilities for the resurrection, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the other made-up things anyone can think of can all dance together on the head of a pin. The expression of those probabilities are mathematically known as epsilon. It's nonzero by definition, but it's also arbitrarily small.

No one is arguing that the chances of a resurrection are great! What we are arguing is that there is no known explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would not include the extraordinary. There are no scholars who dedicate their life to the study of Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, but there are many who dedicate their life to the study of the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection and this is exactly because they understand the facts and evidence demands some sort of explanation. Santa and the Tooth Fairy, not so much. There are no serious scholars who are going to attempt to make a comparison between Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the resurrection.

But you are insisting that the disciples saw Jesus in an objective, physical sense and that there was actually an empty tomb.

False! I have insisted on neither. What I have insisted is that we have evidence the early followers were convinced in what they report, and we have evidence of an empty tomb. What I would need is some sort of evidence to suggest the reports would be false.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #134]

Even if scientists are wrong about everything, gods are still made up. I don't think scientists are that wrong and I've talked to you enough to know that I should double-check anything that you claim no matter how confident you sound, but I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument that they are. That still doesn't improve your position. Something made-up doesn't become more likely no matter how bad other explanations are.

Why do you do this? I never said that scientists were wrong. I said there were open questions in Science, specifically about the creation of the universe, life, and the solar system's formation. These huge unanswered questions make it impossible for anyone to say with any certainty that God does not exist. Methodological naturalism, which is solely based on materialism, is a refuted theory because it predicts that there should be a chain of causal events going back to the creation of the universe, life, and the solar system's formation. Still, that chain of causality does not exist.

No. As a made-up solution to the problem, the probability of gods existing is effectively zero. It's not actually zero in a philosophical sense because anything is possible, but it's arbitrarily close to zero. It asymptotically approaches zero. It's zero to as many decimal places as you care to name. It shares the same probability space as things like leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy.

You can scream that God does not exist all you want, and you can even jump up and down if you want, but that does not make it true; it is simply a belief that you and others hold. I just wanted to let you know that you have nothing on which to base the above comment.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133]

Nor can you fill it with anything else. Unknown is unknown.

But what you are forgetting is what is called the materialist default, which is that what is known does not demonstrate a god, thus materialism or naturalism had a reasonable claim that whatever the explanation for the - as yet - unknowns, is likely to be natural or material, and not some supernatural explanation.

Thus while unknowns remain i unknown a material explanation is the go - to hypothesis.

All I have to say is, wow, that seems like you really thought it through that well. Who made the rules? If you say science made the rules, then we have a problem. Science, by definition, can only investigate material things. Therefore, science cannot investigate God. Materialism is not the default position. Materialism is the only position possible for science to take.

[Difflugia]

Well, no! We are talking about the claims, along with facts and evidence which has convinced most all scholars (even those who are not Christian) that these folks were truly convinced in what they report.

Reading through your comment, you seem to be confused about the difference between claims, facts, and evidence. The New Testament is essentially a set of claims. What are the "facts and evidence" that are not these claims?

[Difflugia]

So, we're done talking about the New Testament and my relationship with divinity, then? OK. On to your misunderstandings about the mathematics of science.

Why do you do this? I never said that scientists were wrong. I said there were open questions in Science, specifically about the creation of the universe, life, and the solar system's formation. These huge unanswered questions make it impossible for anyone to say with any certainty that God does not exist.

What I said about scientists being wrong also applies to "open questions." Not knowing how something happened doesn't increase the likelihood of any particular made-up answer. In the absence of evidence for gods, I can say that gods don't exist with the same certainty that I can say that leprechauns don't exist. Any particular thing is possible, but that possibility is roughly one in infinity.

Methodological naturalism, which is solely based on materialism, is a refuted theory because it predicts that there should be a chain of causal events going back to the creation of the universe, life, and the solar system's formation.

Methodological naturalism isn't a theory, but is an approach to evaluating data. It doesn't predict anything.

Still, that chain of causality does not exist.

No? Where's the discontinuity?

You can scream that God does not exist all you want, and you can even jump up and down if you want, but that does not make it true;

Projecting again? Still, you're right. Temper tantrums aren't why gods and leprechauns don't exist. The utter lack of evidence means that we can be all but philosophically certain that neither gods nor leprechauns exist, though.

it is simply a belief that you and others hold.

You're right. It's simply a belief that's borne out by everything that we know about the universe, regardless of what we don't know and whatever made-up things you try to fit into those gaps.

I just wanted to let you know that you have nothing on which to base the above comment.

That's right. It's based on the nothing that comprises the evidence for gods. When a theist (or leprechaunist, or invisible unicornist, or Tooth Fairyist, or Santa Clausist, or whatever) shows me something, then I might start to change my mind.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #138]

We continue to go through this over, and over. There are certain things we can know with almost certainty by reading what you are calling claims. As just a very small list, we can know that Jesus was a real historical figure. We can know he had followers. We can know he was crucified. We can know there were those who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. According to most scholars, we can know the early followers of Jesus truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death. We can know that Paul was completely opposed to Christianity. We can know that Paul converted. We can know that Paul goes on to be the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

It is these, and many other things we can know by reading what you call claims here, along with calling it fiction elsewhere. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what is contained in the Bible. The authors contained in the NT were not making claims for the world to read. Rather, these authors were addressing particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone else other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea about the Bible. It can be demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to those who already believed, and with this being the case it could in fact be that the whole of the NT was addressed to those who already believed. So then, who were these authors making claims to?

Let's just get to the bottom line here. As we read what is contained in the NT we definitely have enough facts and evidence to know that something out of the ordinary occurred which has had an enormous impact upon the history of the world. There is no way anyone can deny this fact. So then, we have enough evidence contained in the NT to know this much. Now, you may look at this evidence and come to a different conclusion than I do, and I have no problem with this in the least. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, there would be no reason to come to the conclusions I have, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be the case, with very poor arguments. I mean, you all act as if I have not thought of the arguments, you are bringing forth, when it would be impossible not to think through these things for one who actually thinks. My main point over, and over is, there is no way one can sit down in order to think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away from such a study, under the impression that it is a "no brainer" either way. For one to come away believing such a thing, either demonstrates one who has not really done the work, or they are being intellectually dishonest.

So then, we can continue this back and forth over the particular issues over, and over, or you can just go ahead and make the case why it is so simple along with demonstrating to us why there would be no reason to believe.