I am not trying to perpetuate ideas of false composition; rather, I am building upon the fact of biblical events being historically accurate. No composition. I have not even mentioned supernatural events yet; only basic information such as Christ as a person, authors of Gospels, etc. Nothing supernatural.
As soon as you use the word 'christ' you have already committed the fallacy of composition, because you are attempting to imply supernatural events that are not necessitated by the name 'Jesus' on its own. To avoid the accusation you might have to explain why do you particularly need to establish that Jesus was a real person. We don't need to establish that Socrates was a real person (probably wasn't, actually) to appreciate the ideas associated with that name. 'Christ' implies a supernatural intent.
Stuu: On what basis do you believe the universe is real?
Based on observable, quantifiable, qualitative evidence. The same as any educated person. The same as any uneducated person.
Well, does it help if I rephrase my assumption as "2. I assume that my senses do not deceive me"? That's not far off what I mean. You must appreciate that you cannot use your senses to confirm that they are not being deceived. And you must know examples of when each of your senses have deceived you, mainly because of the incorrect modelling done by the brain on the data fed in from the sense organs.
Stuu: You can't have 'causes' if time doesn't exist yet...
Sorry, but it's true.
If we just discount any kind of systematic research, scholarship, evidence, etc. then there is no point in discussing anything; whatever our existing and instant opinion is would thus then be true. Such an approach reduces reality to personal relativity, negating objective truth and facts.
Agree. You seem to be doing exactly this.
As to "discovering what is true," I have time and again provided evidence and claims that support my position. You just deny it.
You haven't yet posted anything that a real historian would recognise as valid.
You mean the most complete manuscript of Matthew that we have? Yes, it is Greek. What about the two portions that are older than this particular manuscript, with Aramaic and Hebrew texts? Granted, they are partial, but they are exact wording as the Greek text, granting language transcriptions.
The oldest version is from the Fourth Century CE, and by that time onwards you get variations in different versions that arise from copying errors. So then if you take all the bits that are in Greek, and the bits in Aramaic, and the bits in Hebrew, and put them all together to find the common language, why is the consensus of the scholars doing this work that the original was written in Greek? That is entirely inconsistent with the author being who you seem to be claiming it was.
The dates of composition, location of writing, timelines, etc. Do you just dismiss and forget any information that is contradictory to your position?
No, I expect evidence not assertion. You are just presenting the traditional view as assertion.
No. Historical analysis, cross examination with other historical texts, carbon dating on manuscripts, comparative histories, etc. tell us that the Gospels are accurate historical records regarding events as described.
Carbon dating?? Really? That's brave of you on ToL. Maybe you could post some links to archeological analysis, or one decent example of a cross-reference between a mention by a Roman diarist and an actual event that is important to the use of the word 'christ', or a link to a proper historical comparison from two different cultural perspectives that coincide on something important in establishing the existence of Jesus or verifies a claim made about him in relation to the properties of a 'christ', whatever you think they are.
One link to something robust, is that too much to ask? And I'm not particularly interested in anything that proves there was a Roman empire, or that there was a temple in Jerusalem, or that there were two kings called Herod. We know already that is history. If you are claiming support for 'christ' then where is it exactly?
Stuu: You don't know what you are talking about, do you.
Typical atheist assertion of higher intellect. Deny evidence that is detrimental to your case, and say the opponent is clearly just a rambling loon. Classic Ad hominem.
Sorry, it's not ad hominem because I wasn't using it as an argument against your claim, it was just an observation. On the other hand, you are using a strawman argument, because I didn't make any claims of higher intellect, I didn't deny anything in particular, and I didn't say that you are any kind of loon, if you care to read those 10 words above.
False. The largest consensus places the most likely date of 60 AD, with the next largest consensus places it between 60-73 AD. Then the third largest consensus says 72 AD.
You don't know what you are talking about, do you.
Just conveniently forgetting those random accounts of Josephus, Lucian, etc. Yep. Just attack the opponent. A vastly superior tactic of displaying intellect.
Well, don't just tease us. Tell us exactly what helpful input Josephus has, and what can be read from it, and do the same for Lucian.
Why not try providing evidence that is supportive of your case.
OK. I've done that further down in the simple case of Herod and the Census of Quirinius.
Matthew and John! Just dismissing that evidence again. Did I not mention direct reference to the authors of the gospels being applied by Papias in Asia Minor as early as 130 AD? Oh, right. I did. Just another conveniently forgotten fact.
Hearsay added in the Second Century by zealots with a motive is not evidence. I hope, when you give your dissertation on Josephus you mention the fact that some of his writing was dishonestly altered by early christians. That is enough evidence on its own to establish motive to rewrite history in favour of a Jesus myth, and therefore to continue to be cautious about any claims made by early christians.
I don't know what he inhales to maintain his reality.
Probably just addiction to Answers in Genesis.
Sure, help me explain the Herod census. Here is a link. Try and explain away the list of Herod's, with their ruling years, under the Tetrarchies. Best of luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_dynasty
Thank you for the link. That page has this:
| The Herodian dynasty began with Herod the Great, who assumed the throne of Judea, with Roman support, bringing down the century long Hasmonean Kingdom. His kingdom lasted until his death in 4 BCE |
Then if you go to here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius you get this:
| The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE |
It then goes on to say:
| The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation has been put forward to resolve the contradiction,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake. |
So can
you fix the historical error in the gospels?
Okay, this will be my last comment on ID. What you are doing is making a false equivalence, of sorts. The flagellar motor functions are not synonymous with the excretory systems of other bacteria.
And that is exactly the point. ID creationism is disproved in this case, their favourite, because they claim the only function of the outer part of the motor is that of a motor part, but actually it is found elsewhere doing something else, which they would deny is possible given their assertion about all the parts having to come together uniquely in that motor, not having existed as anything else before.
Also, ID is not focusing on flagellar functions, as much as drawing attention to what created the flagellar motion? What then created that creator? Hence, "irreducible." It ties in to the natural law of causation.
Yep, I think it is best for you that you don't further comment on ID. Unless you do some more reading. But you will only be disappointed by all kinds of creationism, it's just telling lies for a god.
Examine Dr. Berlinski's work.
I read the Wikipedia page on Berlinski, having heard his name quite a few years ago. Looks like he is a fan of a handful of disproved canards of creationism. The sands keep shifting with creationists, I'd estimate his creationism is about 15 years out of date on some points, and closer to 50 years out of date on others. By those timespans I mean the periods in which creationists were raising such claims and having them disproved by real scientists.
Examine mathematical statistics.
Yep, I did that at school. So I might be able to understand a devastating statistical argument against evolution by natural selection of you put one up. If it is the one I think you have in mind, then I wouldn't bother, but by all means go ahead if you wish.
Various scientists, who supported evolutionary theory, then refuted it based on new evidence being presented, such as Dr. Kenyan.
Kenyon, it's spelled. Another liar for his god. He is one of the original proponent of ID, which you have promised not to mention again. Would you like to go there again, or shall we forget all about this villain too?
First off, I do believe it is necessary to teach evolution in schools. Especially when our entire taxonomy system and nomenclature are based upon in.
Carl Linnaeus' system is the one still used for classification. Like most scientists of the 18th Century he defaulted to creationism, so it is not necessary to have Darwin's theory to classify species. But I agree with your point, that in order for your state or country not to be a laughing stock, and to produce graduates from schools and colleges who can work meaningfully in the biological sciences, then indeed it is necessary to teach evolution. It is the central organising principle of all biology.
However, this is the result of basing an entire system on faulty theory. Due to the scientific community immediately accepting any theory that could possibly support a non-religious view, they built subsequent systems of nomenclature upon it. Then, due to its wide acceptance and use, we are at the point today, where we need to learn about such faulty theory; because due to this immediate accepting of Darwinism, the task of establishing a more precise taxonomy in a timely fashion is near impossible. It makes more sense to continue to use a broken system, fixing it and educating about it as best we can, than to try and repeal and replace it.
If you think evolution by natural selection is wrong, then because it is a proper scientific theory all you will need is evidence that disproves it. Do you have any?
Creationists have been trying and failing since 1859 to actually disprove evolution by natural selection. It is one of the longest standing and most successful theories in all of science; chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology have all been completely revolutionised since then. The theory of natural selection is surprisingly robust and remains the best explanation for the variety of life on earth. Note that creationism does not explain how life came to be present in such diverse forms. It asserts that magic happened, which is not an explanation that should satisfy anyone.
As for the Dover Trial, it is simply a war of opinion. ID wanted to push creationism into education, which I disagree with (which doesn't help with those presenting ID being poor speakers under pressure). That was their goal. However, the atheist opposition rejected any logical evidence...
The words you are looking for are 'disproved the laughable ID claim'...
...simply because it was detrimental to their case and cause. It was not a battle of logic and evidence. It was a battle of agendas and preferred beliefs. For any such "Trial" to be effective, there must be an agreement on agenda, as well as a standard of what constitutes grounds of acceptance for evidence.
The ID agenda: tell lies to children because religious fundamentalists want to engineer a cultural change (see the famous Wedge Document for more details)
The opposing agenda: teach proper science to children so their state won't be ridiculed by the rest of the world as liars to children (and to allow them to participate in doing real science to improve our knowledge, understanding and technology to the betterment of our species and other species, which is what the professional creationists have never done).
The evidence in favor of ID was much more reliable and substantial, but the illogical rejection of it on part of the atheists was what "won" the trial.
Who are you quoting there? You can't make that claim for yourself because you don't understand what the evidence was, if your previous writing is anything to go on. And you might have missed the fact that the writer of the article I cited, who was one of the central witnesses at the trial, is a Roman Catholic.
But think about the absurdity of this having to go to trial at all. I realise there are conspiracy theories out there about what can be accepted as science, but if ID creationism was real, why have all those creationists with qualifications in biochemistry, such as Michael Behe, entirely failed to convince real scientists?
If it's all so true then why are they so desperate to bypass university biochemistry departments and other research institutes that are full of the people who could convince everyone else of how true it is, and instead try to get to the kids in schools?
Stuart
