Life From Dirt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

@It Ain't Necessarily So doesn't like me saying that skeptics believe in anything, and says he will correct me when I do that. (Skeptics/atheists don't have faith in anything, they just lack faith in things it seems) But if what they are saying indicates otherwise, that also should be pointed out to them.

The problem is that whenever you think you are pointing such out, it turns out you are just arguing a strawman.

 

[Brian2]

What witnesses? All you have is a book, written a long time after the events, that says there were witnesses.

Are you saying that the evidence for Jesus and Christianity is not better than the evidence for Buddha and Buddhism, or is this just a random attack on Christianity based on the skeptic belief that the gospels were written by people who did not know much about Jesus?
But imo the actual evidence suggests that the gospels were written by the people the church claims wrote them.

 

[Brian2]

How come you can't provide any without logical fallacies (argument from ignorance or personal incredulity), then?

An evidence for God in the post you quote is given in the evidence for Jesus, but I suppose you missed that.

 

[Brian2]

Extremely biased apologetic sources do not reflect academic history

The article is just offering some of the evidence for Israel in Egypt and the Exodus as a counterpoint to archaeologists who say there is none.
It is clear which side of the debate you take.

 

[Brian2]

Philosophy evolved over time with many philosophers.

If that is the way you see Buddha's philosophy, OK. I suppose that would account for the corruption in Buddhism when Buddha was supposedly a Baha'i Messenger from God.

Yes, if we have recorded eyewitness, but the most important books of the Bible, the gospels and the Pentateuch lack provenance of authorship and eye witnesses.

Moses was there in Egypt and at the Exodus and it is he to whom God say, "Write these things down".
John was an apostle, Matthew was an apostle, Luke was a companion of Paul who spoke with witnesses, Mark was a translator for Peter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the evidence for Jesus and Christianity is not better than the evidence for Buddha and Buddhism, or is this just a random attack on Christianity based on the skeptic belief that the gospels were written by people who did not know much about Jesus?
But imo the actual evidence suggests that the gospels were written by the people the church claims wrote them.

It is probably worse for Christianity. You clearly do not understand the burden of proof very well. Some claims require more evidence than others. "I died and came back to life after three days" takes far more evidence than "I thought about things real hard and now I am enlightened" does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But wouldn’t it be by default as an agnostic atheist?

No.

It doesn’t seem congruent to say “I don’t rule out supernaturalism” and then say “I am an agnostic atheist”.

You should read up on what the word "agnostic" means.

Maybe the question really is… “If you don’t rule out supernaturalism, why don’t you investigate it and pursue the possibility? What is the “why?"

Because there is no reason, no evidence, whatsoever to do so.
There's nothing pointing in that direction, so why even consider it as a possibility?

It's like when a detective investigates a crime. You'ld need an actual starting point to consider somebody a suspect.
You don't go around considering just any random person as a suspect to start investigating. You'ld never solve any crimes like that. You narrow it down first. And you do that based on data. You need actual reasons to consider someone a suspect. You need a lead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It depends on what a person believes.

What people "believe" doesn't actually matter.

You may say it has no explanatory value, but I disagree with that, since I believe nature itself shows there is a creator, or higher power.

Your beliefs don't matter.
It has no explanatory value, because it's not an explanation. It's just an assertion.
"god dun it" explains absolutely nothing.

An explanation is supposed to make something intelligable, understandable. It has to give one deeper insight into what is happening and why. That in turn gives predictive capability. An explanation concerning aerodynamics for example, gives one the ability to understand how to build better airplanes.
Merely saying "god regulates aerodynamics" will not give one the ability to build airplanes, let alone better airplanes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article is just offering some of the evidence for Israel in Egypt and the Exodus as a counterpoint to archaeologists who say there is none.
It is clear which side of the debate you take.

No, apologist sources do not use evidence properly either. What qualifies as historical evidence is something that I am not sue of, but I have seen more than enough of their failures at using scientific evidence that leads me to conclude that they will fail when it comes to historical evidence.

Use of such sources is a sign that the user knows that he is wrong.

 

[exchemist]

The article is just offering some of the evidence for Israel in Egypt and the Exodus as a counterpoint to archaeologists who say there is none.
It is clear which side of the debate you take.

He's merely on the side of scholarly consensus: The Book of Exodus: A Biography. By Joel S. Baden

" Exodus is a complex literary work whose origins derive from a storytelling tradition. Much of what appears as historical narrative—for example, the trek of two million Israelites from Egypt to Canaan—is essentially the product of “exaggeration, assimilation, and accretion” (p. 7). The historical record offers neither material nor archaeological evidence to confirm the Exodus event. Clearly, something happened—the Israelites did experience foreign domination and they were liberated—but not in the way described in the text. "

There isn't really a "debate" about this. It is just that some people, who want to take the Old Testament literally for religious reasons, strain to concoct reasons for Exodus happening as the bible story says.

 

[Brian2]

If this evidence is subjective, then you are not entitled to say it is "obvious". You may say it is obvious to you, but that is quite different from it being obvious, period

I already said "imo"

Furthermore it is incorrect to claim it is "rejected" by many, since, as the evidence you speak of is subjective, these "many" may not have had the same subjective experience as you have. Nobody can "reject" an experience they have not had.

It should be obvious that I am speaking of people who have seen that The evidence for Jesus is prophesied historic events confirmed by witness.
I'm not talking about an experience as being the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidenced predictions sound like a reasonable way to test hypothesese but that is probably not 100% reliable as I hear that evidence is turning against the BB these days.

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.

www.lppfusion.com

I don't care if the BB is correct or not really. Either way it does not show that the universe had a naturalistic beginning.
It is the "naturalistic" part of the hypothesese that is the problem and the unknown part, especially by science, which always wants a naturalistic answer until a God can be shown to exist.

False.

Science wants an evidence based answer that can actually be objectively and independently verified.

It just so happens that supernatural / magical answers can't be objectively or independently verified.
That's a fault of supernatural / magical claims, not a fault of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Either way, however the posits go, you can't have evolution without whatever was supposed to happen at abiogenesis

False.

How many times must this be explained?

AGAIN:

You can't have evolution if you don't have systems that reproduce with variation and are in competition over limited resources.

It matters not HOW these systems came about.

Seriously, HOW MANY TIMES must it be repeated?

Then you have to wonder which abiogenesis led to plants, which led to animals, etc.

Neither. Plants and animals share ancestry, as demonstrated by our collective genetics.

The theory no longer makes real sense to me.

That is due to your willfull ignorance and insisting on a strawman version of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

You should do a better job at studying. You make really rookie and basic mistakes.

 

[Brian2]

He's merely on the side of scholarly consensus: The Book of Exodus: A Biography. By Joel S. Baden

" Exodus is a complex literary work whose origins derive from a storytelling tradition. Much of what appears as historical narrative—for example, the trek of two million Israelites from Egypt to Canaan—is essentially the product of “exaggeration, assimilation, and accretion” (p. 7). The historical record offers neither material nor archaeological evidence to confirm the Exodus event. Clearly, something happened—the Israelites did experience foreign domination and they were liberated—but not in the way described in the text. "

There isn't really a "debate" about this. It is just that some people, who want to take the Old Testament literally for religious reasons, strain to concoct reasons for Exodus happening as the bible story says.

No the article is not on the side of scholarly consensus.
And really there is no straining to concoct reasons for Exodus happening as the Bible story says.
Imo the evidence points straight at the Exodus happening at the time the Bible tells us (about 1450 BC) and how the Bible tells us, and the Archaeology of Canaan points to the truth of the conquest account in Joshua.
Many historians and archaeologists agree with this, so there is a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the article is not on the side of scholarly consensus.
And really there is no straining to concoct reasons for Exodus happening as the Bible story says.
Imo the evidence points straight at the Exodus happening at the time the Bible tells us (about 1450 BC) and how the Bible tells us, and the Archaeology of Canaan points to the truth of the conquest account in Joshua.
Many historians and archaeologists agree with this, so there is a debate.

Apologists are not historians or archaeologists. They tend to fail rather badly when they try. Did you forget already how a Christian "archaeology" paper about Sodom and Gomorrah and a comet was destroyed?

 

[exchemist]

I already said "imo"



It should be obvious that I am speaking of people who have seen that The evidence for Jesus is prophesied historic events confirmed by witness.
I'm not talking about an experience as being the evidence.

What you said was: "The evidence for God is obvious but still rejected by many imo." I took that to mean the "imo" applied to your personal view that these people "reject" the "obvious" evidence for God. Now you say it is the evidence for God that is in your opinion obvious. Well, OK.

I remind you it was the evidence for God that you were talking about when I challenged your use of the term "rejected", not Jesus. You were saying the evidence for God, not Jesus, is subjective experience. That's why I objected that a person who has not had such subjective experience of God cannot be said to have "rejected" the evidence.

Nothing to do with Jesus at all.

 

[exchemist]

No the article is not on the side of scholarly consensus.
And really there is no straining to concoct reasons for Exodus happening as the Bible story says.
Imo the evidence points straight at the Exodus happening at the time the Bible tells us (about 1450 BC) and how the Bible tells us, and the Archaeology of Canaan points to the truth of the conquest account in Joshua.
Many historians and archaeologists agree with this, so there is a debate.

So the citation I provided, from the professor of Hebrew bible at Yale, is wrong, is it? How do you reach that conclusion with confidence?

 

[exchemist]

False.

How many times must this be explained?

AGAIN:

You can't have evolution if you don't have systems that reproduce with variation and are in competition over limited resources.

It matters not HOW these systems came about.

Seriously, HOW MANY TIMES must it be repeated?



Neither. Plants and animals share ancestry, as demonstrated by our collective genetics.



That is due to your willfull ignorance and insisting on a strawman version of it.

This person is just trolling. There is no point trying to explain it all over and over again.

 

[ratiocinator]

Christianity based on the skeptic belief that the gospels were written by people who did not know much about Jesus?

Well we don't have anything that wasn't written long after the events, so claims of witnesses are are at least second-hand and highly dubious.

An evidence for God in the post you quote is given in the evidence for Jesus, but I suppose you missed that.

Prophesy? Comical.