Creation vs. Evolution

[Daniel1769]

There's more evidence for the story of Jesus than Charlemagne. By default, if there is enough evidence for the existence of Charlemagne and his accomplishments, in your opinion, there is enough evidence for Jesus and His. As I say to all unbelievers that want evidence, "What kind and how much evidence would convince you?" I personally don't believe that any amount of evidence will ever convince any committed atheist. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ha... the shroud?? Would that possibly evidence of a resurrection? It is evidence of something... but what?? A hoax?

Imo, the Shroud is unlikely to be authentically Jesus. But the carbon dating done on it was useless because they only tested the outside of the cloth, which was undoubtedly replaced several times throughout history in order to keep the Shroud from looking tattered. If a carbon-14 test of material from the middle of the Shroud would be permitted, we could find out once and for all what time it was from.


Because it is very literally a photograph, the Shroud has been theorized to have been created when the energy from Jesus's resurrection burned his image into the cloth.

 

[alwight]

There's more evidence for the story of Jesus than Charlemagne. By default, if there is enough evidence for the existence of Charlemagne and his accomplishments, in your opinion, there is enough evidence for Jesus and His. As I say to all unbelievers that want evidence, "What kind and how much evidence would convince you?" I personally don't believe that any amount of evidence will ever convince any committed atheist. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It's one thing accepting that a person probably did exist because people existing is an established fact requiring no suspension of any laws of physics. Otoh miraculous events should require something a bit more special and extraordinary imo, not just a blind faith in an ancient scripture.

 

[Daniel1769]

It's one thing accepting that a person probably did exist because people existing is an established fact requiring no suspension of any laws of physics. Otoh miraculous events should require something a bit more special and extraordinary imo, not just a blind faith in an ancient scripture.

If you don't believe the recorded deeds of Jesus, why do you believe he existed at all? If the writers of the texts lied about his deeds, how does it follow that they didn't lie about him entirely?

 

[alwight]

If you don't believe the recorded deeds of Jesus, why do you believe he existed at all? If the writers of the texts lied about his deeds, how does it follow that they didn't lie about him entirely?

Well, I think that humans typically do embellish and exaggerate, we all do it. I don't think there was any conspiracy to lie, just a probable agenda to evangelise and have a story that was special and interesting that would want to be heard not rejected. The authors of the four gospels were imo simply creating a dramatized account of a an earlier story, probably with a particular audience in mind of their time.

 

[Greg Jennings]

If you don't believe the recorded deeds of Jesus, why do you believe he existed at all? If the writers of the texts lied about his deeds, how does it follow that they didn't lie about him entirely?

We know for certain that some authors of non-canonical gospels exaggerated Jesus's actions. Some have him flying, for instance. I'm not saying that the canonical gospels are embellishments necessarily, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility

 

[Daniel1769]

Well, I think that humans typically do embellish and exaggerate, we all do it. I don't think there was any conspiracy to lie, just a probable agenda to evangelise and have a story that was special and interesting that would want to be heard not rejected. The authors of the four gospels were imo simply creating a dramatized account of a an earlier story, probably with a particular audience in mind of their time.

An exaggeration would be if the multitudes of thousands that came to hear Jesus preach was actually only hundreds. The claims that he worked miracle and resurrected from the dead are something else. You seem to think the writings about Him are enough to suggest he lived, but the rest is false. Do you think Jupiter was a man too, just not a god?

I think this issue is like many other issues for atheists. Appeal to authority or just believing authority. "The experts say Jesus lived but wasn't special, so he must have lived. Experts say evolution is real so it must be." And so forth.

 

[Hedshaker]

-

There's more evidence for the story of Jesus than Charlemagne. By default, if there is enough evidence for the existence of Charlemagne and his accomplishments, in your opinion, there is enough evidence for Jesus and His. As I say to all unbelievers that want evidence, "What kind and how much evidence would convince you?" I personally don't believe that any amount of evidence will ever convince any committed atheist. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Mentions of Jesus from several authentic, extra Biblical, and "contemporary" sources would settle it for me, no doubt. Of course I still wouldn't believe the miracle tales. They sound more like embellishments that someone threw in for good measure. Extra ordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Tacitus and Josephus would be good had they been genuine contemporaneous of Jesus. But they were not and even some Christian Biblical scholars accept that the Josephus mentions were fraudulent.

But of course, that doesn't prove a mythical Jesus either, it just shows enough doubt to warrant a little scepticism. But anyway, there's always good old faith to fall back on.

 

[patrick jane]

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, right?
Paul clearly wasn't an eye witness while he doesn't even seem to know how many disciples there were since Judas had already hanged himself.
Paul writing about supposed eye witnesses is at best only hearsay, but what it certainly isn't is an eye witness report from twelve or perhaps eleven, or arguably only ten individuals, it was something that some guy called Paul dreamed up. lain:

There is eyewitness testimony written by the apostles and Christ came directly to Paul, all AFTER resurrection - The eyewitness testimony of all these people cannot be refuted. Jesus' ascension was also witnessed, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit; also witnessed. You lose by discounting this, listen to Michael

 

[alwight]

An exaggeration would be if the multitudes of thousands that came to hear Jesus preach was actually only hundreds. The claims that he worked miracle and resurrected from the dead are something else. You seem to think the writings about Him are enough to suggest he lived, but the rest is false. Do you think Jupiter was a man too, just not a god?

There are many ways to embellish, some subtle or more obvious than others. Written words can't be relied on to be verbatim because in practice they rarely are unless they can be tied into hard evidence and verified perhaps.
To simply believe in miracles because some anonymous author says so is imo being a bit naïve and gullible or perhaps needy if you want to believe in such things a priori regardless of their likeliness and the laws of physics. Dead men just don't rise from the dead in my experience, therefore it would take something rather more special than anonymous words to make me reconsider that.
I don't base my whole life around Jupiter being a real person or a god but I am very content to assume that no gods are real, classical Greek ones or not, until I am convinced otherwise.

I think this issue is like many other issues for atheists. Appeal to authority or just believing authority. "The experts say Jesus lived but wasn't special, so he must have lived. Experts say evolution is real so it must be." And so forth.

Experts say there is plenty of hard evidence for Darwinian evolution, which clearly that is true, and that is why I'm convinced by it, not because I have any anti-god agenda, I don't.

 

[alwight]

There is eyewitness testimony written by the apostles and Christ came directly to Paul, all AFTER resurrection - The eyewitness testimony of all these people cannot be refuted. Jesus' ascension was also witnessed, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit; also witnessed. You lose by discounting this, listen to Michael

Evidence free assertions or some guy called Paul having dreams is never likely to convince me. There is no eye witness testimony in the NT that I'm aware of to refute.

 

[Hedshaker]

We know for certain that some authors of non-canonical gospels exaggerated Jesus's actions. Some have him flying, for instance. I'm not saying that the canonical gospels are embellishments necessarily, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility

Well if he could walk on water I see no reason why he couldn't fly as well. After all, both defy gravity. :think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Well if he could walk on water I see no reason why he couldn't fly as well. After all, both defy gravity. :think:

True. But considering the "flying gospels" were discarded at Nicaea for being too fanciful, I think that (for whatever reason) there is a Christian distinction between flying and briefly walking on water

 

[Hedshaker]

Evidence free assertions or some guy called Paul having dreams is never likely to convince me. There is no eye witness testimony in the NT that I'm aware of to refute.

I saw video where Richard Carrier made an interesting suggestion regarding Paul's road to Damascus experience. He said it's possible that Paul had become very sympathetic to Christians and was consequently suffering cognitive dissonance, and the best way to suddenly convert was to manufacture a vision. Apparently visions were not uncommon back then.

 

[alwight]

I saw video where Richard Carrier made an interesting suggestion regarding Paul's road to Damascus experience. He said it's possible that Paul had become very sympathetic to Christians and was consequently suffering cognitive dissonance, and the best way to suddenly convert was to manufacture a vision. Apparently visions were not uncommon back then.

Visions seem to feature quite often in religious belief, never mind all the prophets, reality not so much. :idunno:

 

[alwight]

True. But considering the "flying gospels" were discarded at Nicaea for being too fanciful, I think that (for whatever reason) there is a Christian distinction between flying and briefly walking on water

Winged horses would just be ridiculous of course. lain:

 

[patrick jane]

Evidence free assertions or some guy called Paul having dreams is never likely to convince me. There is no eye witness testimony in the NT that I'm aware of to refute.

John 20:28-29 KJV -

It doesn't get too much more eyewitness than Thomas and Jesus after resurrection with the other 11, including John who wrote it !! It's ok if you don't believe, it's just meant to be.

 

[6days]

John 20:28-29 KJV -
It doesn't get too much more eyewitness than Thomas and Jesus after resurrection with the other 11, including John who wrote it !! It's ok if you don't believe, it's just meant to be.

Here is a list of evidences / reasoning / logic that the resurrection is a historical fact.
"(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:
1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.

We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. 1

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” 2

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.”3

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.

Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends.

2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances.

For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” 4

Finally,

Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.” 5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” 6

In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now in his early published work Dr. Ehrman expressed skepticism about these facts. He insisted that we cannot really affirm these facts. Why not? Well, he gave two reasons:

First, he said, historians cannot say that a miracle probably occurred. But here he was obviously confusing the evidence for the resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is a miraculous explanation of the evidence. But the evidence itself is not miraculous. None of these four facts is any way supernatural or inaccessible to the historian. To give an analogy, did you know that after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there was actually a plot to steal his body as it was being transported by train back to Illinois? Now the historian will obviously want to know whether this plot was foiled or not. Was Lincoln’s body missing from the train? Was it successfully interred in the tomb in Springfield? Did his closest associates like Secretary of War Stanton or Vice-President Johnson claim to have seen appearances of Lincoln alive after his death, and so on? These are questions any historian can investigate. And it’s the same with the four facts about Jesus.

But Professor Ehrman had a second reason why he thought the historian cannot affirm these facts: the Gospel accounts of these events are hopelessly contradictory. But the problem with this line of argument is that it assumes three things: (i) that the inconsistencies are irresolvable rather than merely apparent; (ii) that the inconsistencies lie at the heart of the narrative rather than just in the secondary, peripheral details; and (iii) that all of the accounts have an equal claim to historical reliability, since the presence of inconsistencies in a later, less reliable source does nothing to undermine the credibility of an earlier, more credible source. In fact, when you look at the supposed inconsistencies, what you find is that most of them—like the names and number of the women who visited the tomb—are merely apparent, not real. Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies are found in the secondary, circumstantial details of the story and have no effect at all on the four facts as I’ve stated them.

So most historians haven’t been deterred by these sorts of objections. And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have “solid traditions,” not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty. 8

When I discovered that Professor Ehrman had reversed himself on this question, my admiration for his honesty and scholarly objectivity shot up. Very few scholars, once they’ve gone into print on an issue, have the courage to re-think that issue and admit that they were wrong. Dr. Ehrman’s reversal of his opinion on these matters is testimony, not merely to the force of the evidence for these four facts, but also to his determination to follow the evidence wherever it leads. What this means is that my first contention is not an issue of disagreement in tonight’s debate. The whole debate will therefore turn upon Dr. Ehrman’s response to my second contention, namely:

(II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts.

So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. He writes, “Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.” 9 This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I’ve promised to say more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman’s hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection—and so would we.

In conclusion, then, I think that there is good historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Specifically, I’ve staked out two basic contentions for discussion tonight:

I. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection, and

II. The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead."William Lane Craig

 

[Yorzhik]

Do I irritate you Yorzhik?

Anyway what case are you offering instead, do you even know yourself?

Irritate me? Huh? Where do you get that idea?

Thanks for proving my point.

Perhaps your goal is simply to promote creationism albeit of an older vintage, therefore in your mind common descent must be false?

No, I used to be a believer in common descent. But then I looked at the evidence and realized common descent must be false.

I'd say that in fact your only objection to common descent is because it tends to make your creationist belief invalid. Not that you have any evidence against it, least of all any kind of scientific evidence or indeed consensus.

And your eyes glaze over just like that. Stay there; it's your happy place. Like I said... you wouldn't understand.

If you are in fact right that common descent is false despite the evidence and yes, a general scientific consensus, then even with a greater time scale available to you, creationism just isn't science and never will be.

Or rather, it's your safe space. Here is alwight discussing Halloween at Yale.

 

[Yorzhik]

As you may know, whenever there is a discussion about science by non experts, the consensus of the actual working science experts is the best guess anyone can make.

Going against the established consensus is not something for the layman or anti-science advocate to do without a healthy portion of humility.

Amen. And one way to know if one understands their position is to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. What good points have YEC made that you give props for?