INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

Macro evolution is probably but will always bee a matter of faith.

Except the immense fossil record says otherwise. There simply is no other explanation in terms of what is found, and it cannot be explained by your concept of God because life forms were created over billions of years, whereas the Genesis creation accounts have God only doing it over 6 days. Even if one believes those days may be longer, this still doesn't explain the fossils created over billions of years.

Hey, if they find rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer, please let us know, OK?

Give me single example of one. Actual infinities are logical absurdities.

Give the numerical equivalent of pi until it ends.

What is Namaste? Sounds like good night. Give me a possible infinite please. I can't discuss an infinite amount of infinities

It can be said upon greeting or saying farewell, and it's like an honorable hello or a honorable goodbye. It actually has a root of 'I will bow to you".

 

[Agnostic75]

The only reason I deal with al these repeats and subjects I do not much care about is I like you. Why are you doing everything you can to destroy that? You have been getting more and more personal and sarcastic. I do not recommend it.

I am not personal and sarcastic at all, I merely asked you why anyone should pay any attention to a dabbler in biology.

If you do not care about whether or not macro evolution is true, you should not discuss it, especially since you have debates going on in some other threads. I would at least agree with many conservative Christians that it would be quite odd for an omnipotent God to take millions of years to create life slowly when he could have done it instantly, but theistic evolutionist experts believe that that is what God has done.

What am I bluffing about anyway?

You are obviously bluffing when you refuse to defend your claims against experts since you know that if you did, it would quickly become obvious that you do not know enough about biology to adequately defend your claims about macro evolution. You know that what I said it true.

Why would any skeptic amateur need to defeat you in a debate about macro evolution when thousands of skeptic, and Christian experts could easily do that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Holy heck where did you get that from? Did you found the most prestigious legal program in history? He did.

He gave actual examples of what you claim does not occur. Did you read the whole paper?

Yes, I did read the whole paper, and Greenleaf did not say anything about a specific supernatural event that reasonably proves that the event happened, and he did not say anything that thousands of skeptic Bible scholars could not adequately refute. Greenleaf was a lawyer, not a professional theologian, and lots of new research regarding biblical criticism and history has been conducted since his death in 1853.

Research shows that today, contemporary eyewitness accounts are often wrong, let alone eyewitness accounts that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.

Please quote some examples by Greenleaf that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

Do you disagree with Dr. Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains some forgeries? Have you read his book about Bible forgeries? I haven't. If you haven't, I would be willing to read it if you will, and then we could discuss it. If the Bible contains any probable forgeries at all, that is reasonable evidence that it is plausible that God did not inspire any writings about homosexuality.

Accurate transmissions of texts does not necessarily have anything to do with divine inspiration. In addition, since there are very few existing first century, and second century original texts, how can anyone know how many texts, and which texts might have been changed?

The Bible is definitely confusing. Regarding the flood story, the texts indicate that there was a flood, and that it was global, so the story could not have just been an allegory about bad things happening. After the flood, God told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If there had not been a flood, God would not have told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If the flood had been regional, it would have been ridiculous for God to tell Noah that he would never destroy all life again in a very small area of the world since thousands of years later, people would be scattered all over the world, and most of them would not be at risk from another regional flood.

No research shows that Christians are less likely to have bad things happen to them than non-Christians are, so your claim that the flood story is partly about bad things happening to sinners is not valid. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told them that life would be difficult for humans from then on. God did not distinguish good people from bad people, he certainly didn't when he sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans since it was generally rich people who recovered the best from the hurricane, not Christians, and God destroyed Christians' homes just like he destroyed other people's homes.

You should not have objected when I told you that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income since I was only mentioning some research that was conducted. Why do you suppose that creationism tends to appeal to those groups of people?

Atheists reject the existence of all gods, including gods who are not personal, and are not bossy, so there must be some other reasons than just the reasons that you gave why atheists claim that the God of the Bible does not exist.

In my post #2803 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-381.html#post3518446, which is in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum, I provided some good reasons why the God of the Bible does not exist, and some good reasons why if he does exist, he is immoral.

Christian moral, and scientific achievements do not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible. If you claim that I am wrong, I will start a new thread on that topic.

 

[cottage]

Nope. This is the worst mistake that exists in non-theistic arguments. This and Dawkins central argument are the worst arguments possible for atheism and are kind of a running joke among Christians. Things that come into being need causes. Not uncaused things. I have to type this every other day and need to copy and paste it. Anyway. There are two philosophical truths involved here. Things that begin to exist need causes. There must at some point be an uncaused first cause of everything else that needs no cause it self or we would never get anything. An infinite regression of causation with no uncaused first cause will never produce anything and is a logical absurdity. If you start with any effect in the chain and start going backwards you MUST eventually reach an uncaused prime cause. Look up prime mover. I usually give examples and quotes but I just can't type all that out again.

Well, if it is a running joke among Christians then perhaps that’s because they haven’t seen or understood the implications in what they are asserting? You are referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, in particular William Lane Craig’s formulation. The mantra that ‘Every thing that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence’ is not demonstrable; and if the contingent principal of causality is to be applied to God then it is perfectly legitimate to ask ‘Who or what caused God?’

Now since there is no logical necessity in causality we can certainly allow the idea of a prior nothingness, which negates an external cause of the world together with the very principle itself. Logically something can exist where before there was nothing, which is not saying absurdly that something can come from nothing. And if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose an external cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity since not only will that First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial. So we can hypothesise from this actual (and thus logically possible world) to think of it as once not existing and from which it follows that there would have been no logical laws to be affirmed or denied. Possible worlds (including God) exist or might exist and where there are possible worlds there will be logical principles entailing that possibility since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if there were no worlds other than this, the actual world, then necessity and contingency will only have meaning as concepts within the world and cannot therefore be an argument for beings external to the world.

 

[1robin]

Except the immense fossil record says otherwise. There simply is no other explanation in terms of what is found, and it cannot be explained by your concept of God because life forms were created over billions of years, whereas the Genesis creation accounts have God only doing it over 6 days. Even if one believes those days may be longer, this still doesn't explain the fossils created over billions of years.

You mean we find a dinosaur and then a crow and there can be no doubt as to the 100 million years and steps in between. Faith must be present if absolute proof is not. I admit it is probable, why can't you admit it contains faith? Why is evolution defended like a sacred doctrine by non-theists? If I had as much devotion to God as non-theists do to their version of evolution I would be satisfied.

Hey, if they find rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer, please let us know, OK?

How about a boot or some modern tools in coal seems? How about genetic tissue in fossils supposed to be tens of millions of years old?

Give the numerical equivalent of pi until it ends.

That is a theoretical infinity not an actual. Once someone actually does scroll it all out then it will be an actual, but that is an actual impossibility. You are going to have to try harder than that. A number is an abstract concept anyway. They also are not determined by nature.

It can be said upon greeting or saying farewell, and it's like an honorable hello or a honorable goodbye. It actually has a root of 'I will bow to you".

If anyone bows to me I am running the opposite direction. I guess Obama bows enough for us all. Pi is not an actual infinite so give me another please.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I did read the whole paper, and Greenleaf did not say anything about a specific supernatural event that reasonably proves that the event happened, and he did not say anything that thousands of skeptic Bible scholars could not adequately refute. Greenleaf was a lawyer, not a professional theologian, and lots of new research regarding biblical criticism and history has been conducted since his death in 1853.

Research shows that today, contemporary eyewitness accounts are often wrong, let alone eyewitness accounts that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.

Please quote some examples by Greenleaf that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

Do you disagree with Dr. Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains some forgeries? Have you read his book about Bible forgeries? I haven't. If you haven't, I would be willing to read it if you will, and then we could discuss it. If the Bible contains any probable forgeries at all, that is reasonable evidence that it is plausible that God did not inspire any writings about homosexuality.

Accurate transmissions of texts does not necessarily have anything to do with divine inspiration. In addition, since there are very few existing first century, and second century original texts, how can anyone know how many texts, and which texts might have been changed?

The Bible is definitely confusing. Regarding the flood story, the texts indicate that there was a flood, and that it was global, so the story could not have just been an allegory about bad things happening. After the flood, God told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If there had not been a flood, God would not have told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If the flood had been regional, it would have been ridiculous for God to tell Noah that he would never destroy all life again in a very small area of the world since thousands of years later, people would be scattered all over the world, and most of them would not be at risk from another regional flood.

No research shows that Christians are less likely to have bad things happen to them than non-Christians are, so your claim that the flood story is partly about bad things happening to sinners is not valid. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told them that life would be difficult for humans from then on. God did not distinguish good people from bad people, he certainly didn't when he sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans since it was generally rich people who recovered the best from the hurricane, not Christians, and God destroyed Christians' homes just like he destroyed other people's homes.

You should not have objected when I told you that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income since I was only mentioning some research that was conducted. Why do you suppose that creationism tends to appeal to those groups of people?

Atheists reject the existence of all gods, including gods who are not personal, and are not bossy, so there must be some other reasons than just the reasons that you gave why atheists claim that the God of the Bible does not exist.

In my post #2803 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-381.html#post3518446, which is in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum, I provided some good reasons why the God of the Bible does not exist, and some good reasons why if he does exist, he is immoral.

Christian moral, and scientific achievements do not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible. If you claim that I am wrong, I will start a new thread on that topic.

This is mostly a repeat and I will get into Greenleaf in depth with another poster so please see that post.

 

[1robin]

Well, if it is a running joke among Christians then perhaps that’s because they haven’t seen or understood the implications in what they are asserting? You are referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, in particular William Lane Craig’s formulation. The mantra that ‘Every thing that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence’ is not demonstrable; and if the contingent principal of causality is to be applied to God then it is perfectly legitimate to ask ‘Who or what caused God?’

What in the heck is going on here? No subsection of reality any way it can be sliced has the reason for it's existence within it. No effect has ever been observed that has no cause. That is what makes a law a law. Nothing has zero creative potential. The natural has zero demonstrated creative potential from non-existence. There are no known exceptions. If you wish to hope that some day something will change that is fine with me but I never cease to be amazed by this tactic. In every other issue of any type you would insist we go with the best evidence we have. Unless God is involved then we may freely go in-spite of every single piece of evidence we have even if we are only positing a fantasy. I have finite time to make certain determinations and like everyone else about everything else I make most based on less than knowing every fact about every thing every where. Why is this invalid for God? I know of nothing more substantiated that effects require causes. If you invent a standard that makes that unreliable then the entire spectrum of reality would become meaningless. I have no idea why you think this.

Now since there is no logical necessity in causality we can certainly allow the idea of a prior nothingness, which negates an external cause of the world together with the very principle itself.

A hypothetical negates nothing in actuality and nothing has zero causal potential.

Logically something can exist where before there was nothing, which is not saying absurdly that something can come from nothing. And if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose an external cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity since not only will that First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial. So we can hypothesise from this actual (and thus logically possible world) to think of it as once not existing and from which it follows that there would have been no logical laws to be affirmed or denied. Possible worlds (including God) exist or might exist and where there are possible worlds there will be logical principles entailing that possibility since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if there were no worlds other than this, the actual world, then necessity and contingency will only have meaning as concepts within the world and cannot therefore be an argument for beings external to the world.

Again I do not get this type of thinking. You deny something that has no known or theoretical exception if favor of something that has no known example. Why? This is not reason or logic nor rational. It is preference driven hope in-spite of the evidence. We could sit around and debate hypotheticals till the end of time. Why should we when something is as consistent as cause and effect? I will end by simply saying that most philosophers since historical times have granted cause and effect and it is consistent with all known data. I am going with that. Hypotheticals in spite of the evidence and devoid of any themselves are not really my thing. The only challenge possible is for you to find at least one effect that has no cause. Good luck.

BTW if there was something then nothing then us. We can not access the something before the nothing and have the same problem because once the nothing arrived there was no creative potential anywhere. Nothing produces nothing, every time.

 

[McBell]

What in the heck is going on here? No subsection of reality any way it can be sliced has the reason for it's existence within it. No effect has ever been observed that has no cause. That is what makes a law a law. Nothing has zero creative potential. The natural has zero demonstrated creative potential from non-existence. There are no known exceptions. If you wish to hope that some day something will change that is fine with me but I never cease to be amazed by this tactic. In every other issue of any type you would insist we go with the best evidence we have. Unless God is involved then we may freely go in-spite of every single piece of evidence we have even if we are only positing a fantasy. I have finite time to make certain determinations and like everyone else about everything else I make most based on less than knowing every fact about every thing every where. Why is this invalid for God? I know of nothing more substantiated that effects require causes. If you invent a standard that makes that unreliable then the entire spectrum of reality would become meaningless. I have no idea why you think this.

Now all you need to do is show that the universe is an effect.
No, merely repeating the empty claim will not work.

Don't worry about complicating it with throwing in god.
Just show that the universe is an effect.


I am most curious how you will fair without your invented god standard.

 

[McBell]

Again I do not get this type of thinking.

You must be in full blatant denial.

You deny something that has no known or theoretical exception if favor of something that has no known example. Why? This is not reason or logic nor rational. It is preference driven hope in-spite of the evidence. We could sit around and debate hypotheticals till the end of time. Why should we when something is as consistent as cause and effect? I will end by simply saying that most philosophers since historical times have granted cause and effect and it is consistent with all known data. I am going with that. Hypotheticals in spite of the evidence and devoid of any themselves are not really my thing. The only challenge possible is for you to find at least one effect that has no cause. Good luck.

Not as difficult as you would like others to think.
You have successfully done so.
You call it "god".

BTW if there was something then nothing then us. We can not access the something before the nothing and have the same problem because once the nothing arrived there was no creative potential anywhere. Nothing produces nothing, every time.

You keep going on and on about "something from nothing" but the fact of the matter is that the only ones who use that dishonest strawmen are the ones trying to convince themselves and others their favoured deity exists.

 

[metis]

You mean we find a dinosaur and then a crow and there can be no doubt as to the 100 million years and steps in between. Faith must be present if absolute proof is not. I admit it is probable, why can't you admit it contains faith? Why is evolution defended like a sacred doctrine by non-theists? If I had as much devotion to God as non-theists do to their version of evolution I would be satisfied.

Not at all true-- not even close. It is not based at all on "faith", as the scientific method was devised to try and eliminate bias, with "faith" being one of them. Science is based on research and evidence-- not faith.

How about a boot or some modern tools in coal seems?

I would suggest that a careless miner probably was involved.

How about genetic tissue in fossils supposed to be tens of millions of years old?

A fossil is actually rock, and if that rock completely seals genetic material, it may not disintegrate. There actually is some dinosaur d.n.a. that's been recovered, btw.

That is a theoretical infinity not an actual. Once someone actually does scroll it all out then it will be an actual, but that is an actual impossibility. You are going to have to try harder than that. A number is an abstract concept anyway. They also are not determined by nature.

So, you say that mathematics doesn't really relate to the real world? I would suggest that it does, which is why a guy like Einstein can take a piece of chalk and write his theories of relativity without actually using any other graphics to explain these phenomena of physics-- and one of my former professors saw him do just that at Princeton.

No, I would tend to believe that math and physics relate, and since infinity does occur in math, I would suggest that it might well occur in real life.

Pi is not an actual infinite so give me another please.

Oh really? Well: "Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of any two integers (fractions such as 22/7 are commonly used to approximate π but no fraction can be its exact value). Consequently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern." -- Pi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, I did read the whole paper, and Greenleaf did not say anything about a specific supernatural event that reasonably proves that the event happened, and he did not say anything that thousands of skeptic Bible scholars could not adequately refute. Greenleaf was a lawyer, not a professional theologian, and lots of new research regarding biblical criticism and history has been conducted since his death in 1853.

Research shows that today, contemporary eyewitness accounts are often wrong, let alone eyewitness accounts that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.

Please quote some examples by Greenleaf that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

Do you disagree with Dr. Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains some forgeries? Have you read his book about Bible forgeries? I haven't. If you haven't, I would be willing to read it if you will, and then we could discuss it. If the Bible contains any probable forgeries at all, that is reasonable evidence that it is plausible that God did not inspire any writings about homosexuality.

Accurate transmissions of texts does not necessarily have anything to do with divine inspiration. In addition, since there are very few existing first century, and second century original texts, how can anyone know how many texts, and which texts might have been changed?

The Bible is definitely confusing. Regarding the flood story, the texts indicate that there was a flood, and that it was global, so the story could not have just been an allegory about bad things happening. After the flood, God told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If there had not been a flood, God would not have told Noah that he would never destroy all life on earth again with water. If the flood had been regional, it would have been ridiculous for God to tell Noah that he would never destroy all life again in a very small area of the world since thousands of years later, people would be scattered all over the world, and most of them would not be at risk from another regional flood.

No research shows that Christians are less likely to have bad things happen to them than non-Christians are, so your claim that the flood story is partly about bad things happening to sinners is not valid. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told them that life would be difficult for humans from then on. God did not distinguish good people from bad people, he certainly didn't when he sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans since it was generally rich people who recovered the best from the hurricane, not Christians, and God destroyed Christians' homes just like he destroyed other people's homes.

You should not have objected when I told you that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income since I was only mentioning some research that was conducted. Why do you suppose that creationism tends to appeal to those groups of people?

Atheists reject the existence of all gods, including gods who are not personal, and are not bossy, so there must be some other reasons than just the reasons that you gave why atheists claim that the God of the Bible does not exist.

In my post #2803 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-381.html#post3518446, which is in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum, I provided some good reasons why the God of the Bible does not exist, and some good reasons why if he does exist, he is immoral.

Christian moral, and scientific achievements do not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible. If you claim that I am wrong, I will start a new thread on that topic.

This is mostly a repeat and I will get into Greenleaf in depth with another poster so please see that post.

Much of what I said is not a repeat, and we have not discussed in detail most of what I did repeat.

In my post #2803 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-381.html#post3518446 in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum, I provided reasonable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that if he does exist, he is immoral. I also provided reasonable evidence that if supernatural beings exist, no Christian would be able to tell the good ones apart from the evil ones, or even that any good ones exist. I also provided reasonable evidence that in many cases, geography determines what people believe.

 

[1robin]

I was responding to the point that you made, since I don't know you why would I make an assumption? As for what comes for a Christian faith, I'm actually quite sure I know what comes into it.

How do you know what comes FROM a Christians faith if you do not have it?

From the story you've told me, and that you have posted many times before, I also can see that you were never really an "atheist" to begin with, at least it doesn't appear as again you mentioned a hatred for God.

It is possible to not believe something exists but hate it if it does. If you want to call me a hard agnostic that is fine. From the Bible's perspective until born again we are all atheists. Even those that have a superficial faith.

But again it's how you wrote it that had me make my response. Your personal life and what lead you to believe in God is your own personal experience.

There are many roads that lead to God but unless there is a God there is nothing there to supply a response. A few hundred people claiming a UFO appeared (and I would never guess their motivations) are probably rooted in some fact but mistaken identities, etc..... There are good reasons to think UFO's have never visited here. Billions who claim to experience what can't be anticipated and what has no substitute to mistake it for is almost certainly fact. Especially given the actual dramatic changes in human lives, plus the millions of claims to miracles. My point is wishful thinking may produce a certain type of faith but will never get feedback or proof.

 

[Agnostic75]

What am I bluffing about anyway?

You are obviously bluffing when you refuse to defend your claims against experts since you know that if you did, it would quickly become obvious that you do not know enough about biology to adequately defend your claims about macro evolution. You know that what I said is true.

Even if macro evolution is false, you do not know enough about biology to reasonably prove that in debates with experts. In addition, even if a God exists, you do not know enough about quantum physics to adequately defend your claim that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe in debates with experts.

Regarding biblical textual criticism and history, there are many gifted skeptic amateurs who specialize only in that field who would demolish you in debates, let alone skeptic experts. Many of them are fluent in New Testament, and a few are also fluent in ancient Hebrew. They have read hundreds of background books, and do not debate anything except for that field. They think nothing of spending decades debating that field.

I have dozens, probably hundreds of new topics for us to debate that will take at least five to ten years to adequately discuss.

 

[1robin]

I have. Here is my critique that I promised when you and I last dicussed the subject some while back. I believe it to be a fair appraisal and I've given him credit where I think it is due, but it has to be said that no court of law would give serious weight to Greenleaf's arguments nowadays, never mind find for the conclusion that he does, for a supernatural being, as another contributor has rightly pointed out.

What do you mean these days? He lived in the last 1% of human history. The principles of law have been known for thousands of years and only change to reflect modern aspects that did not exist at the time but are not fundamentally new. He wrote some of the books used for this purpose. He determined what is acceptable or not. Ancient documents with far worse pedigrees have actually been submitted in courts. I disagree with this.

The Testimony of the Evangelists seems to be nothing more than an argument for believers. Simon Greenleaf is supposedly presenting his paper based on judicial rules of evidence, which on the face of it is a noble exercise. But as we will see he frequently deviates from his task to engage in metaphysics or to expound his doctrinal beliefs from faith, he utters unsupported assertions as if they were fact and resorts to special pleas and arguments from authority. He is quick to pick up on fallacies and yet flounders on some of his own making. I have identified those indiscretions where I come across them.

I have here your opinion and his. He is one of the most distinguished legal scholars in human history. I will examine you points but as for opinions why would I go with yours? Expert witnesses are a time honored method of determining facts. I was on a trial where many were brought in and not one came without massive credentials. There is a reason for that. Do you have any?

I will say I have already read your response and it is articulate and scholarly. It is the best I have seen. I think it inaccurate but well written but we will get to that.

1
I’ll begin by allowing that (in my view) the documents may have been entirely free of intended fakery or deception in the way of complicity. But nevertheless we’ll still consider the copies of copies, or the “multiplication of copies,” as Dr Greenleaf puts it, as there may be cause for doubt in that area. For by his raising the matter Greenleaf himself clearly considers it a reasonable objection. He defends the point by saying “If it be objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. He then goes on to assume that lost copies would be faithfully and accurately reproduced, and he bases that assumption on the “Christian community” that “must be conversant” with their own affairs. But if the originals are lost then how could it be known that they were faithfully and accurately reproduced? And the “affairs” with which Christian community is assumed to be conversant would, in that situation, no longer be a testimony as a witness statement but information received from others that may not be entirely accurate or recorded verbatim. So by any standard it is a remarkably presumptuous statement to make when he says that the copies are “entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence” and that it is “not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth.” Really! Why? That is nothing if not a special plea, especially as an “authentic document” does not mean it is necessarily true or accurate. To quote Richard Packham: “All authorities on the rules of evidence emphasize that authenticating a document does not guarantee the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents. “Authentication merely shows where the document came from and when it was created.” So on that account Greenleaf’s reply is not a “satisfactory answer” since it conflates authenticity with faithful and accurate transcription, and given those points together with the timescale and the subject matter itself we may allow very reasonable grounds for doubt in that respect.

This is an easy one. The things necessary to reliably know what originals said is early copying, prolific copying, and independent copying. The Bible exceeds every other text of any kind in all categories from ancient history. Casers Gallic wars has less than ten copies that are 900 years plus after the events. The Bible has thousands within a few hundred and fragments that go way back including a few that many believe were within just a few years of the crucifixion. If you deny reliability of the copies of the NT then you would have to far more deny the accuracy of every document before about 1000 AD. Since that is not what is done in every college on Earth it can't be done to the Bible for almost infinitely less reasons. It is the overabundance of copies that allow the Bible to not every error and have (even according to Ehrman and his ilk) less than 5% scribal error and those are known. Even he admits that no core doctrine has any error. There just does not exist any chance the Bible is significantly corrupted as the dead sea scrolls and others have demonstrated in every case. .

2

Dr Greenleaf says that the annals of warfare give few examples of such heroic consistency, patience and courage. We are being asked to accept that this was special, greater, more extreme or in someway distinct from all other examples of human zeal and fortitude. Throughout history men and women have suffered terrible privations, torture, and death for their beliefs, whether religious, political or simply to defend the principle of freedom. Greenleaf’s protestations concerning one special interest group carry no more weight than can be allowed for any other. There is nothing that distinguishes the Evangelists’ passion and commitment over and above that of any other groups who would have suffered, and died even, for their faith in gods or their ideological beliefs. He tells us “Where there is no motive or incentive for dishonesty, men are presumed to be honest.” And I agree, for I do not assume to question their moral rectitude. The motive here is not necessarily to be seen in terms of dishonesty, a point I will explore later in the discussion. Greenleaf’s argument is a subtle one. He is only too aware that he cannot make a case for a supernatural event by directing us to examples and making comparisons with everyday facts. He has only the Testimonies, written words, and his method is to introduce the spectre of “falsehood” and blatant dishonesty: “Had these men been evil,” and “…had they one shred of evidence that they were teaching a gross falsehood…” So Greenleaf will proceed to show that accusations of misdeeds or complicity are unfounded and that the Testimonies are therefore to be viewed as credible documents. We are then expected to make a connection between the integrity of the documents and the import that implies truth and accuracy in the subject matter. But we are not led to such a conclusion. He says: “In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.” Indeed, and I agree. But there is no ‘oral testimony’; there is only documentary evidence and the trial of fact in this case allows no opportunity to orally cross-examine the witnesses in person. And once again Greenleaf steers the matter of “probability” away from the question of the documents’ accuracy towards the Evangelists’ personal integrity, as if to insist that the latter guarantees the former condition, which of course it does not.

I agree the sincerity in prosecuting war is not evidence of accuracy of belief. I will add however that no group in human history has a fraction of the example of willingly laying down lives passively for a belief. Risking death to kill others is a very common occurrence in history but the Jews and Christians have unrivaled records of choosing certain death without struggle. This argues very strongly that they had an external source of power no other culture has demonstrated, that allowed them to do this. Pilot's successor wrote to Rome and suggested that if the death penalty for denying that Caesar was God was not redacted that there would be no Jews left alive to govern.

The Gospels are record of oral testimony in the exact same way depositions are. Legally the probability of reliability of testimony is the issue never it's certainty. The Gospels pass all tests for reliability but none exist for certainty in any court room or history book. I have covered the copies reliability so will not revisit that issue.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Continuation
3
Still in the same vein, Greenleaf asks: “Would men invent such teaching.” From Greenleaf’s own arguments there is every reason to think the men’s beliefs were profound and genuine, and that those beliefs were in accordance with a pre-existing doctrine. So it isn’t a matter of their belief that needs to be questioned, but the means by which they conveyed it into the transcription, for they would incorporate in the documents what they earnestly and profoundly believed to be the truth. What can be said with near certainty is that first and foremost the men presented evidence of their faith; but whether the events described could be counted as factual, given that they were wholly unnatural occurrences, which were only supported by documents, is addressed by asking: Why, if in everyday life, we would not accept testimonies alone as incontrovertible evidence for alleged supernatural events then why must we allow a special exception in this particular case? Greenleaf rejects any possible objection with a prejudice that elsewhere he asks sceptics to put aside in the search for the truth: “the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection are true and incapable of refutation” (quotes Paley). And surely such an absolute assertion is utterly inconsistent with the rules of evidence? And then there is this: “But it is impossible to read their writings and feel that we are not conversant with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences, with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience of God.” (The underscoring is mine) These are opinions and not examples of a disinterested, forensic analysis. It is not for Greenleaf to direct the reader to consider his personal and subjective notion of feelings as evidence; he is presuming to lead or influence the reader with his own opinions or religious calling.

I have covered textual accuracy previously and will await a response before adding to it. Unnatural occurrences can have natural verification. You have said you do not disagree that they sincerely record what they believed as fact. I have stated why what we have is an accurate account of what was recorded. If The apostles saw Christ die, saw him sealed in a tomb, and later walked and talked with him in what way is the unnatural source of these events involved in determining if they occurred? What probability and standard do you assign things that have no natural explanation? They had perfect access to these facts, you admit they were sincere, I showed we know what they recorded. On what basis is it denied. There are many claims that had no natural proof available to the authors but even if you removed it all (plus what might have had natural explanations) there is still far more than enough to justify faith in Christianity's core claims. If you admit they were honest you are on the hook for many things they claimed. If we are not conversant with them in a reliable way you still have not demonstrated why?

4
And still on the question of “facts” Greenleaf says: “The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.” So he makes an unsupported assertion to a supposed truth without the least reference to matters of fact, and having made the assertion immediately presumes to exclude any critique of his claim. And having pulled up the drawbridge behind him, by presuming to set those terms of reference, he then with breath-taking cheek seeks to find fault with David Hume’s empirical argument! He says [Hume’s position] “excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone." Well, yes, Dr Greenleaf, for that is precisely what is meant by the term ‘facts’! We see a ploy that appears throughout his piece, where he introduces a premise as if it were already a certain truth, as if to establish it in the reader’s mind, and then as in this particular instance remembers the legal protocol and adds as an afterthought that what he claims to be proven ‘forms no part of these inquiries’. But if, as in a court of law, those leading statements form no part of the inquiries then should they not be struck from the record?

Greenleaf makes comments in three contexts. Strictly legal, as statements about what part of the premise is not strictly legal and covered by other sources (an exhaustive discussion of everything that pertains to the reliability is not the scope of his paper but mentioned for context and reference),and as a sort of side note that his faith makes impossible to not include. I think you are judging comments made in one context by the standards required by another. Not every sentence is a legal dissertation but many times an adjunct commentary.

As I have stated if the Bible is stripped of everything that is not a matter of it's authors competent experience there is still more than enough left for complete reliability of core claims. Christ's trial and execution is an experiential claim not a doctrine. Same with his appearances, miracles of most types, his parables, his teachings.

I will not that as I said in another posts you are requiring that the Bible abide by the most exacting standards you can possibly posit yet when it came to science any thing would do, even things that defy every known occurrences ever observed. These inconsistent standards always baffle me.

And then we have another of those unsupported assertions and a plea to authority by one who ought to know better, in which the truth of miracles is assumed with no objections allowed:

“But the full discussion of the subject of miracles forms no part of the present design. Their credibility has been fully established, and the objections of skeptics most satisfactorily met and overthrown, by the ablest writers of our own day, whose works are easily accessible.” 1097

That is a side note about what is not part of his intentions or purpose. How can anything excluded from something be wrong or relevant even if wrong. He said I am not discussing X on the basis of Y. You say he can't assume X because of Y. If I said I am not discussing Bigfoot on the basis of testimony, why are you saying claims about the testimony concerning Bigfoot are invalid?

Prior to that fallaciously dismissive passage Greenleaf says:

“We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God. Whether this uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation, is a point we cannot certainly know. But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there is a Supreme Being, by whom this world was created, we may certainly, and with equal reason, believe him capable of works which we have never yet known him to perform.

It is fallacious to consider as reliable that if source X exists then it may very well be capable of things we do not yet know of, especially if X is a potentially OMNI-being. Science does this every single day and even assume X's can do Y's without the slightest evidence X's exist or Y's are even possible.

In the above passage Greenleaf has digressed and gone well beyond the legal parameters to delve into the realm of metaphysics.

However his claims are reliable extrapolations from experience. The same is done in every field there is (including law) every day.
Continued:

 

[1robin]

Now what we can certainly know is that nothing in or of the contingent world is necessarily true, and in consequence there need be no world, to include all its operations, upon which, by analogy, he endows the Deity with its causal powers of creation and conservation. He admits we cannot go beyond experience and yet still seeks to do so, making God dependent upon features of the empirical world, that is to say cause and effect, a contingent principle that can be denied without contradiction. But if God, the Supreme Being, is dependent upon a contingent principle then by definition God is not God, which would be self-contradictory such as saying A=A is false or a thing is not the same as itself. Greenleaf argues that ‘the power originally put forth to create the world’ as cause and effect is the ‘active operation of the finger of God.’ But the analogy is a misleading one for cause and effect does not imply that anything was originally created; we do not create anything in the physical world, not objects, not thoughts, not anything; we just apply, adapt, or respond to what is already there. This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist but comprises a change or variation in existent things. Even our most fantastic imaginings, for example, are not created from nothing but compounded from general experience.

We can say every know effect has a cause without any known exceptions and there exists no better foundation for extrapolating that that. He says we can't make extrapolations separated from experience. He did not and it is not logical to claim we can't make extrapolations beyond experienced based on experience. I have never been hit by a car but extrapolating from experience I do not want to be. Nuclear war has never killed all of the life on Earth but extrapolation from experience It is almost certain it could and might. Why deny that which is perfectly appropriate but then extrapolate life came from non-life, multiverses exist, and cause and effect do not exist, and nothing has creative potential, which defies every experience ever known? Inconsistency on steroids. God is not dependent on any feature of any world. Why did you claim that?

“Without stopping to examine the correctness of [Hume’s] doctrine, as a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, it is sufficient in this place to remark, that it contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational belief, or the existence or character of God.”

I think that is what I said above. Those who posit things that defy all experience should not object when we infer from experience.

Greenleaf is supposed to be confining himself to matters of fact and experience as a principle of the rules of evidence, supposedly before a trier of fact, and yet questions Hume’s empiricism to speculate on the existence of God! And Hume’s empirical conclusions are hardly fallacious when Greenleaf himself has already acknowledges the limits of experience: “Whether this uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation is a point we cannot certainly know.” Hume’s argument is that by inference we may deduce conclusions that are to be found in possible experience, but nothing in experience is necessary, while Greenleaf is supposing to extend the principle beyond possible experience, which is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry or speculation. And notice how he already assumes the existence of God that the knowledge by inference is supposed to provide! So much for “bringing to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice,” which was his very first sentence in page 1 of the piece. We are not seeing a genuine enquiry, a quest for the truth; rather we are seeing one who finds for a conclusion that is given in advance.

If the Apostles witnessed Christ die, then alive again, they recorded it accurately, we have reliable copies, and I read them. In what way is my faith that the dead may live again a claim beyond experience? I'm what way is a denial of cause and effect consistent with experience? Who's claim is made by a mind more free of presumptions? I think you confused comments made in one context with his legal reasons in another. However good job and I hope we can resolve some of these points in detail. When this much volume is involved it is hard for me to provide the quality I wish.

 

[1robin]

Much of what I said is not a repeat, and we have not discussed in detail most of what I did repeat.

Everything I scanned was either a repeat or an issue (Greenleaf) I answered in other posts.

In my post #2803 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-381.html#post3518446 in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum, I provided reasonable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that if he does exist, he is immoral. I also provided reasonable evidence that if supernatural beings exist, no Christian would be able to tell the good ones apart from the evil ones, or even that any good ones exist. I also provided reasonable evidence that in many cases, geography determines what people believe.

I only have two hands.

 

[Agnostic75]

The things necessary to reliably know what originals said is early copying, prolific copying, and independent copying.

But it doesn't matter what the originals said if a God did not inspire them. What evidence do you have that God inspired the originals?

Risking death to kill others is a very common occurrence in history but the Jews and Christians have unrivaled records of choosing certain death without struggle. This argues very strongly that they had an external source of power no other culture has demonstrated, that allowed them to do this.

No it doesn't since all that that reasonably proves is that Christianity was the most effective religion at convincing people to give their lives for their religion "among the available choices," certainly not the most effective of "any possible religion." If a new religion was invented, and one million people joined it, and all of them gave their lives for their religion, would that alone discredit Christianity? Of course not, so Christians giving their lives for their religion alone does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible.

There is obviously not any valid research that shows how many people would be willing to die for any possible false religion.

Logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, which are evil, which are the most powerful, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

You have said that fulfilled prophecies are one of the reasons why the Bible is true, but aside from the probability that there are probably not any, if evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that they cannot predict the future, and that they did not inspire Bible prophecies.

Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between having the most power, and being good. A supposed God can be good, evil, or amoral.

In many cases, geography determines belief, and even if people are aware of the Bible. That is irrefutable because of the fact that if all Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, and knew about the Bible, which many Muslims in those countries do, many of them would have become Muslims. If you insist on claiming otherwise, I will start a new thread on this issue.

At another forum, you said that "even if geography determined belief, that does not mean a belief is invalid." That is true, but it still often determines what people believe. How could a loving, fair God often use geography to determine what people believe?

The Bible indicates that God is fair, and loving, but God is not fair, and loving since he refuses to provide at least equal evidence to everyone. Today, surely some skeptics would become Christians if God provided them with the same evidence that Jesus provided for people. Jesus established the standard, and God changed it later by refusing to provide at least equal evidence for all generations of people.

You have claimed that God does not punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and destroys them, but three of your gurus, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas, disagree with you, and so does the Southern Baptist church. If Craig, Zacharias, and Aquinas are right, that is a good reason why people should reject the God of the Bible since no moral God would punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and without offering all of them at least equal evidence.

What fair, worthy, and just goals does God have that he cannot achieve without killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died from starvation, including some wonderful Christian people?

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't matter what the originals said if a God did not inspire them. What evidence do you have that God inspired the originals?

This is a repeat but I will repeat it anyway. Unknown knowledge, prophecy, internal consistency over hundreds of years and different cultures, etc.. This does no matter as much as you think anyway. It is not a mater of a voice from Heaven what they claimed about Christ's words, his death, his resurrection, their actions, miracles, etc..... Only some doctrines depend on it literally being God's word.

No it doesn't since all that that reasonably proves is that Christianity was the most effective religion at convincing people to give their lives for their religion "among the available choices," certainly not the most effective of "any possible religion." If a new religion was invented, and one million people joined it, and all of them gave their lives for their religion, would that alone discredit Christianity? Of course not, so Christians giving their lives for their religion alone does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible.

You must account for what you assume was it's effectiveness. That is a teaching that defies every normal instinct men have. Forcing cool aid down a few hundred kids mouths is one thing, passively laying down the most precious thing we have by the tens of thousands over the course of 5000 years is a whole different game. That takes sincerity, external poser, and logical consistency no other faith has ever produced. That was a side bar anyway and was not intended as proof of anything just reasonable evidence.

There is obviously not any valid research that shows how many people would be willing to die for any possible false religion.

What is history then. We risk death to kill others constantly but only Christians and Jews consistently surrender everything passively.

Logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, which are evil, which are the most powerful, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

Yet you constantly judge him. Your either omniscient or inconsistent.

You have said that fulfilled prophecies are one of the reasons why the Bible is true, but aside from the probability that there are probably not any, if evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that they cannot predict the future, and that they did not inspire Bible prophecies.

Repeat and Tyre is waiting.

Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between having the most power, and being good. A supposed God can be good, evil, or amoral.

That is why I did not draw one.

In many cases, geography determines belief, and even if people are aware of the Bible. That is irrefutable because of the fact that if all Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, and knew about the Bible, which many Muslims in those countries do, many of them would have become Muslims. If you insist on claiming otherwise, I will start a new thread on this issue.

Repeat

At another forum, you said that "even if geography determined belief, that does not mean a belief is invalid." That is true, but it still often determines what people believe. How could a loving, fair God often use geography to determine what people believe?

That was not another forum. The dirt a person is born on never determines what they believe.

The Bible indicates that God is fair, and loving, but God is not fair, and loving since he refuses to provide at least equal evidence to everyone. Today, surely some skeptics would become Christians if God provided them with the same evidence that Jesus provided for people. Jesus established the standard, and God changed it later by refusing to provide at least equal evidence for all generations of people.

Repeat.

You have claimed that God does not punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and destroys them, but three of your gurus, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas, disagree with you, and so does the Southern Baptist church. If Craig, Zacharias, and Aquinas are right, that is a good reason why people should reject the God of the Bible since no moral God would punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and without offering all of them at least equal evidence.

repeat

What fair, worthy, and just goals does God have that he cannot achieve without killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

Repeat

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died from starvation, including some wonderful Christian people?

Repeat.

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Repeat.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Repeat. Why do only you do this?