Why God??!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ockham uses this argument in answer that specific question, so to say that his own claim is not kind to supernatural claims puzzles me.

What Occam would use in his day in age is irrelevant--kucinich already covered that. It's how the principle is applied today in terms of evaluating evidence. When it comes to evaluating claims of the natural vs. the supernatural, given modern scientific knowledge, it sides with the natural. The supernatural is not the "simplest" explanation for things, after all.

Secondly, would Ockham have seen the same division of the material and spiritual worlds, as you do?

He seemed to have done so in his own day and age, as he was a champion of secular absolutism and avvered "that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God."

And I don't believe there is such a division, as I don't believe there is a spiritual world.

And again, had he lived in this day and age with the abundance of scientific knowledge we have, who knows? The point remains he doesn't own the principle once it is given to the world, as with any other such theorist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How do you explain the fact that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses,

Prove it.

in the presence of other eyewitnesses,

So they claim, but prove it. No other sources corroborate that notion.

and claims not to be a fable, but the truth?

Woop-de-dee. People claim they see Elvis in supermarkets.

Surely, if there were discreprencies between the account and the eyewitnesses, the eyewitnesses would correct the mistakes.

Unless, of course, there weren't any of these "eyewitnesses" in the first place? And even so, we have the problem that the Gospels weren't circulating widely until well after any such eyewitnesses would be dead, and that any such "corrections" were actively suppressed as heresies. Why don't you accept the Gnostic differences as such "corrections"?

Finally, the simplest affirmation of the Christian faith comes from 1st Corinthians, which is written not more than 20 years after the death of Christ.

This presupposes the things you're trying to prove as being true in the first place! Utterly circular.

Surely this is not enough time for a whole mythology to arise over the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since there are still living eyewitnesses.

All of this is based on circular presuppositions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

It's how the principle is applied today in terms of evaluating evidence. When it comes to evaluating claims of the natural vs. the supernatural, given modern scientific knowledge, it sides with the natural. The supernatural is not the "simplest" explanation for things, after all.

You miss the point. All Ockham is arguing is that in the spiritual realm one would favour one God over many as a simpler solution to the problem of multiple postulated causes.

That's all.

What you are trying to do is different. I am not trying to say that Ockham proves the existence of God, merely trying to deal with the question of many or one.

He seemed to have done so in his own day and age, as he was a champion of secular absolutism and avvered "that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God."

But that's not your position. He does not deny the existence of a spiritual realm, but rather denies that human reason alone can prove the existence, unity, and infinity of God.

This is an entirely different question, and revolves around the question of proof.

I agree with him. One can offer arguments substantiating that God exists, but one cannot offer proof in the same empirical sense as one would material objects.

And I don't believe there is such a division, as I don't believe there is a spiritual world.

Then you admit, Ockham does not support your position. Arguing that with more science would change his position is a two edged sword. Who is to say that your position would not be different, should the situations be reversed?

You are left then with two options. Either, we can take the arguments at face value, and argue that they still apply today, or we are merely the products of our time.

This same critique applies to you as to Ockham.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prove it.

Of eyewitness testimony?

The part in 1 Cor 15 where Paul testifies that Christ appeared to the brothers, many whom are still alive to evaluate the truthfulness of his testimony.

So they claim, but prove it. No other sources corroborate that notion.

The Gospels are not one source, but many, written at different times, by different authors. Therefore, they can serve as corroboration to each other.

Just because we do not have another historical source that corroborates what one says, does not prove that this particular source is false. Rather, we have the opposite argument that unless there exists evidence that does not corroborate these witnesses, we are to take their accounts as the truth. This principle applies to all forms of historical sources, and ought also apply to the Gospels.

Woop-de-dee. People claim they see Elvis in supermarkets.

So why don't you believe them? They only claim that Elvis has not died, not that he died and rose to life.

Unless, of course, there weren't any of these "eyewitnesses" in the first place? And even so, we have the problem that the Gospels weren't circulating widely until well after any such eyewitnesses would be dead,

Define 'circulating widely.'

and that any such "corrections" were actively suppressed as heresies. Why don't you accept the Gnostic differences as such "corrections"?

Do you have any proof that corrections were actively suppressed?

Christianity is open to their critics, the very fact revealed in that you can read the gospel of Thomas. If they were actively being suppressed, why would you still have the gospel of Thomas available, after all this time?

This presupposes the things you're trying to prove as being true in the first place! Utterly circular.

No. Most scholars date 1 Cor 15 to around 50 AD. Are you saying they are all circular just so you don't have to deal with their arguments?

Surely this is not enough time for a whole mythology to arise over the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since there are still living eyewitnesses.

It takes time for legends to form, longer than 20 years. That's not circular.

Are you saying that the evidence dating 1 Cor 15 to around 50 AD is circular?

Finally, how does the gospel of Thomas in any way refute the notion that Christ rose from the dead? It is true that I do not accept the gospel of Thomas, but then again I do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture either. Both are irrelevant to the issue of the resurrection.

[Zevico]

I just want to but in here for one second. Black Knight stated that to be 'saved' according to Judaism one needs to follow all of the commandments of Judaism. This is incorrect. There is little to no emphasis on 'heaven' and the 'next life' in Judaism. In fact, I do not think there is a mention of heaven in the usual sense in the Torah (old testament). There is the Garden of Eden-which might be construed as a type of heaven where ignorance is bliss or something-and there is the time when the Messiah comes. According to judaism, this would be when a descendant of the king of david becomes the leader of israel and brings peace to the world. From my time spent with modern orthodox religious people, they state that this will only happen when all Jews gather into Israel. A ridiculous concept to me, at least: what about ambassadors to other countries? What if a prime minister goes on a state visit and every single other Jew is in Israel-does he delay the coming of the Messiah? How about the thousands of Israelis that go on vacation at any moment in time? Still, the same could be said of any religion I suppose.
On the other hand, perhaps judaism was different at that time-more "fire and brimstone" a la fundamentalist Christianity or perhaps even Islam today.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here is a free excerpt from my book. Read it and weep

Your book, Lincoln? Is this it? Did you write a review for your own book and give yourself 5 stars?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't suppose you read over this review, Urban Ranger.


The evidence is incontrovertible, September 14, 2003

Reviewer: j2k@ultra2k.com from Arvada, CO USA

I've read quite a bit of material that counters the claims of evolution. If you read anything related to creation science, intelligent design, etc... read this book.

Quite simply, the book makes a rock solid case that shreds the foundation of evolution. It doesn't matter who you are or what your background, if you are willing to face simple scientific facts, you will discover that evolution is mere fantasy.

The last quarter of the book transitions into theology, but DON'T let this deter you if you don't particularly care for religious discussions of origins.

If you believe you evolved from other life forms, you NEED to read this book.

[The Mad Monk]

I haven't been reading the thread, but I had to drop in and say that every time I read the title, I hear the ghost of Al Bundy.

[LDiCesare]

I am not trying to say that Ockham proves the existence of God, merely trying to deal with the question of many or one.

Yes, he decided between many and one and decided one was simpler. We use it to determine between 0 and 1, and find postulating nothing is simpler than postulating something. Occam didn't use the razor for the same question as we do.

Considering the various gospels as corroborating one another is moot because they may all have been written by people who, in the first place, decided of the version they would be giving of the facts. They are not independent works.

About the simplest explanation of an empty grave being resurrection, I think you're being gullible. Grave robbers are also a very good explanation, one which you would probably apply today if you discovered an empty grave.

[Black Knight84]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


50/50? You give the myth too much credit. Maybe 10/90 there was actually a Jesus that remotely resembles that described in the New Testament. You could plug in a lot of the attributes that the New Testament gives him and come out with Buddha.

Where did you get this information from or are these your own assumptions?

[Black Knight84]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Religion makes claims that are:

1) unsupported by evidence

2) sometimes in direct contradiction with proven scientific principles

3) based on "faith"

I've never seen a reason why I should believe in Christianity instead of, say, Buddhism.

"I contend that we are all atheists; I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."

- some guy who's name I forget

BK, why don't you believe that the universe is breathed out by Vishnu?

I would agree that the vast majority of religion does makes claims that are unsupported by evidence. This is because all other religious claims are unverifiable i.e. you can't prove they are true or false. Christianity and the evidence for Jesus and what he claimed to be however is verifiable. The following is the Contents from the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel who was a strong athiest before his wife became a Christian. After seeing the changes in his wife he was immensely curious as to why this faith which 'apparently' has no basis for it's claims could change her so much for the better. Lee Strobel is a Journalist, I am also studying to be a journalist. One of the key themes of being a good journalist is being able to thoroughly examine and question key facts that make up your story. Who is stating this? Why are they stating this? What motives do they have in stating this etc. Strobel asks the tough questions to extremely highly regarded theorists and theologians who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the historicity of Christ. Look at the contents and wonder as to how they proved to Lee Strobel their arguments and how through this he himself eventually became a Christian:

Introduction: Reopening the Investigation of a Lifetime

PART 1: Examining The Record
1. The Eyewitness Evidence
Can the Biographies of Jesus be Trusted?
with Dr. Craig Blomberg

2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence
Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand up to Scrutiny?
with Dr. Craig Blomberg

3. The Documentary Evidence
Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved for Us?
With Dr. Bruce Metzger

4. The Corroborating Evidence
Is There Credible Evidence for Jesus Outside His Biographies?
With Dr. Edwin Yamauchi

5. The Scientific Evidence
Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?
With Dr. John McRay

6. The Rebuttal Evidence
Is the Jesus of History the same as the Jesus of Faith?
With Dr. Gregory Boyd

PART 2: Analysing Jesus
7. The Identity Evidence
Was Jesus Really Convinced That He Was the Son of God?
With Dr. Ben Witherington III

8. The Psychological Evidence
Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?
With Dr. Gary Collins

9. The Profile Evidence
Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God?
With Dr. D. A. Carson

10. The Fingerprint Evidence
Did Jesus-and Jesus Alone - Match the Identity of the Messiah?
With Louis Lapides, M.Div., Th.M.

PART 3: Researching the Resurrection

11. The Medical Evidence
Was Jesus' Death a Sham and his Ressurection a Hoax?
With Dr. Alexander Metherell

12. The Evidence of the Missing Body
Was Jesus' Body Really Absent from his Tomb?
With Dr. William Lane Craig

13. The Evidence of Appearances
Was Jesus Seen Alive after his Death on the Cross
with Dr. Gary Habermas

14. The Circumstancial Evidence
Are there any supporting Facts that point to the Ressurection?
With Dr. J. P. Moreland

Conclusion: The Verdict of History
What does the Evidence Establish? - And what does it mean today?

List of Citations

Notes

Index


*** If I feel up to it I may type up one of the chapters (they are pretty long) but I will have to double check cuz I don't want to get sued! lol. What I found interesting when I read this book was that the Academics interviewed were given extremely tough questions and they came up on top-not with wide sweeping statements and a million quotes from The Bible but concise statements with evidence to back them up. I think this book is worth looking at by Non Christians and Christians alike!

[Juniper]

This debate is too long for me
Go black knight!!!!

Your unbelievable.

I will watch TV now

[Spiffor]

This debate is too long for me
Go black knight!!!!

Your unbelievable.

I will watch TV now

[Black Knight84]

[SIZE=1]
1.I don't doubt the existance of Jesus, just the veracity of the claims about his miracles, especially given that they appear to be scientifically impossible.

2.

So the disciples were probably even more sceptical than you

Nope, they accepted that God existed.

3.

4. Jesus is God
I believe that this will also take care of your question LDiCesare. First of all lets see who Jesus by his actions. He is a man running out the middle east creating a whole new religious movement.

So was Mohammed.

4.

Healing the sick and raising the dead. This shows that he isn't your average human being, BUT people will say, "didn't he use that by God's authority?". Yes he did, he was God in human form. Now, he has been called, The Son of Man, The Son of God, The Word, The Light and he called himself "I AM" which is in reference to what God called himself when talking to Moses in the desert and burning bush.
In Luke 22:69-70 Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees as to his identity:
"But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
Then in Mark 14:62-64 this scene is shown. Also in Matthew 26:64-65.
So Jesus alludes to being "The Son of Man" in Daniel Chapter 7:13-14. In John Chapter One it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darnkess, but the darkness has not understood it." Then it goes on and finally links this to Jesus. Read the chapter if you want the whole picture.
After all this, Jesus' claim to be God is made crystal clear in Hebrews Chapter 1:5-9
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your father?"
Or again,
"I will be his father,
and he will be my Son?"
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him.
...But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness:
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy"
If that isn't enough for you, then Isaiah prophecies the coming of a suffering servant who will bear our sins, read Isaiah 52:13- ch53:12.
Also Psalm 22 Alludes to Christ. In fact there are many more quotes in the Bible where Jesus claims to be God such as John10:31-39.
You may argue that Jesus is mad, yet he could rationally argue and debate with some of the nations top thinkers of the times.

You haven't yet proved that the miracles occured - how can you cite them as evidence for his divinity? I would accept Jesus' divinity, if proof of his miracles was given.

5.

Funnily enough some of the most adamant non-believers who set out to take down Christianity were converted. Such as Saul from Tarsus who later was called Paul and who wrote a substantial amount of Books that are now in the New Testament. He was a Pharisee and he hated Christians with a passion until Christ appeared to him and turned him. We're talking about someone who executed and tortured Christians for a living and got enjoyment out of it, and yet he became one of the most prolific writers of the new testament. Now that's a miracle. Are you going to try and argue to me that he was fooled? That he was hypnotised? I think that argument would requre more faith then my belief in the existence of God.

Saul, however, was already religious. Once you have accepted the existence of God, it is not as much a leap to believe in the Son of God.

1. People thought it was scientifically impossible to be in two places in the same time up until recently. However that was proven wrong. The following is an excerpt from my minister preaching about Science and God, the sermon was titled: "Why God when Science has all the answers". Just before you roll your eyes, this was not a sermon bagging out science. It was not a sermon intended to have Christianity fight Science. Read on and find out...

"I think we should be very clear about what Science has *not* done, because there is now a world of mythology that has now developed around science. Mythologies like this: the idea that science is a collection of immutable laws dictating how everything has been and will be for all time. Now there is an enormous amount of reliability in scientific knowledge, that is clear. The pioneer space craft was launched back in the 80's and on the basis of some pretty full on calculations that space craft has completed an incredible mission through the outer solar system. Those calculations were based on laws of nature that scientists could rely on and calculate on, but please understand that scientific laws have not been discovered written in some manual somewhere. All they are is observations about the world that we have grown to trust, they haven't failed us yet.
We are used to the law of gravity, we trust it everyday, but can I say that's all these laws are and that's all they ever can be. The idea that 'swans are white' is a truth that you can rely on until you discover a continent on the bottom of the world where 'swans are black', you see, it's that kind of law.
The history of science is full of classic examples where what seemed to be well established as law has suddenly had to be thrown out the window. Back in the early 20th century it seemed that Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations were going to explain the whole physical universe and all that was left for science to do was to fill in the gaps. Sciene was feeling pretty cocky around the turn of the century.
That was until two scientists, Rayleigh and Jeans performed their famous Black Body Radiation experiment where they found that Newtons' laws stop working when you get down to the sub-atomic level. In fact they never worked at that level as they were an approximation for macroscopic objects. Turns out there is a whole universe of sub-atomic particles and forces that had never been conceived of before, this is where the quarks and nuons and gluons come in.

Scientific laws are only ever tentative. This is real science, and the truth is, is that science can't absolutely prove anything. What science can do is show that one idea is false and that another idea is a better explanation.
We used to say that an object can't be in two places at the same time. We used to say that until Young's double split experiment demonstrated that electrons are in two places at the same time, it has to do with wave particle duality and the uncertainty principle."
~Tim Blencowe, Minister, Petersham Baptist.
([EDIT] Tim was a physics teacher for several years before he became a minister)

2. I'm a little confused.. you say you studied large portions of The Bible yet the only answer you can come up with is.... "Nope, they accepted that God existed". Perhaps you should read one of the gospels again and see just how much it had to take for many of them to believe in him. I mean Jesus was physically in their presence and yet they doubted him, they doubted him when he calmed the storm, they doubted him when he fed 5000 people, they even doubted him at his crucifixion! Peter denied he knew Christ three times! Judas betrayed him! When the tomb was found empty by the women the disciples still didn't believe and they went and had to check it out for themselves! It was only when Jesus actually revealed himself to them in flesh and blood with the wounds visibly showing, yet he was in perfect health did they believe! It took *alot* before they truly believed in Christ. Yes of course they accepted that God existed, but look how much it took before they accepted that Jesus was the Son of God.

3. Do you enjoy taking my quotes out of their context?

4. Hmm well evidence for his miracles... Look up the non-christian sources, they support that he was a great healer.
The New Testament.. I know you will roll your eyes but many people who had dealings with Jesus (the good and the bad) were around when the New Testament was written and it wasn't contested that he healed many. Are you prepared to dismiss the Bible just as Religious Babble? This Babble that thousands of Christians died for during the Roman Empire? This 'babble' that the writers themselves spent enormous amounts of time writing and verifying and preaching at risk of their own lives...oh that's right you believe they were deluded! lol, I forgot.

5. Yes Saul was 'religous' he was a JEW! NOT a Christian! BIG DIFFERENCE! (oh bytheway I sincerly apologise to the Jews who are reading this, I forgot to add you in the poll and only the moderator can edit it. I hope he/she does). First of all, the Jews were an extremely tight knit group! After thousands of years of enduring crap they had to stick together. So what do you think the social ramifications would have been for Paul after renouncing a faith he had dedicated his entire life to, for a faith that was revolutionary and at the time was believed to be heretical as it broke with many Jewish traditions. One thing about Jewish traditions is, the longer they have been around, the 'better they are'. So Paul had everything to lose in this world by becoming a Christian.
I mean he went from maliciously murdering and torturing Christians to being one of the Core writeres for the New Testament. A simple answer like your's does not answer my challenge to you.
It's like you renouncing your belief in Athiesm for Christianity! That was how massive his life change was! Why did his life change so drastically because Christ appeared to him, when Paul was on his way to Damascus. Interesting huh?
Paul was not deluded, he was an extremely intelligent man with a high position in Judaism...oh hang on...that's right you think that deception is a very powerful tool..hmm...

I find it frustrating that I am dedicating a substantial amount of time to giving your replies a decent response and you reply with one sentence answers, my apologies for being curt in some of my responses but your one word answers which do not do you credit, are the source of my frustrations. Anyhow I really hope people read this seriously and not think oh here's another do-gooding christian trying to convert us all. This is a very very serious issue which can't be swatted aside with .. oh is this a krishnabot? Or...hmm is this a standard dl post? I mean what the heck is a krishnabot? and DL? And NO I'm not a wandering missionary! I used to be in this forum under another sign in name. I spent alot of time here in the lead up to MOO3 which turned out to be a disaster until the patch came out but it is not as if I came here as a random. I knew this to be a good forum with intelligent people on it, that is why I originally posted here, because I love having good discussions!

[Black Knight84]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The problem with the school was that it was religious, not specifically that it was Catholic. I've been an atheist ever since I understood the concept of religion, pretty much - I believe I actually realized this when I was about six. Before then I wasn't really able to seperate the fact from fiction.

Jesus had issues with 'religion' as well. :-)
In fact, Jesus is against Religion! Now doesn't that seem to be a 'non-sequiter'? Why I would love to sit here and talk about this forever why doesn't someone else expand on this comment?