The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

If it's only self-evident to you, it's useless to everyone else. Like I've pointed out several times now.
So it's not really self-evident, by standard usage of the term.

I have to wonder why you've bothered saying it's self-evident at all, when you can't even demonstrate it is, and such a claim is useless to everyone else but yourself.

I understand, and going with the dictionary definition you are employing, my responses are:

1. God as Creator and God as existing are self-evident to most people except for:

2. Skeptics who are yet to personally encounter God

3. Skeptics who have encountered God but are in denial

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Audie]

Using the hypothesis method/assumption of truth/hallmark of scientific inquiry:

Paul is a liar. He never did miracles or lead thousands to start new churches and follow him in Roman imprisonment and martyrdom:

Why did 11 other writers plus apocryphal writers agree with Paul?
Why did Peter, a follower of Jesus, say Paul's writings were scripture?
Who was the Jesus of Nazareth Paul spoke of, and why did Jesus rise from the dead?

I am not too sure you are the one to talk about
science, which is, in the event, irrelevant here.

The snake story is an obvious phony. It makes
no sense.

It would be terrific to re enact it in a courtroom
setting, we'd have the jury and audience in stitches.

As for stories about miracles, those are much cheaper
than a dime a dozen. They come from all over the
world, thick as hairs on a dog's back.

NOT ONE has ever been demonstrated to be real.
Bring in science for that one Show a miracle.
Or Bigfoot.

As for your pointless rhetorical question about
"11 writers", see the following: (there are more, if 8 is not enough)

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Now, do you care to try to defend the lie about
the snake, or, concede that it was a hoax.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not an objection, just an appeal for clarification: What do you mean by "best" in your statement

"The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event," ?
​

In what way is it best?

.​

Thank you--in the sheer volume of cross-referencing documents.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In the first few centuries, the influence of Christianity was small and the Jews had MUCH bigger problems to deal with (like the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora). Why waste energy writing a response to a minority position that really wasn't significant? Remember that writing was an expensive endeavor and copying even more so.

Which underscores my original point: Why would 12 people write all those NT documents, challenging that the OT authenticates them as does the thousands of contemporaneous eyewitnesses, to promulgate a lie?

 

[Audie]

Which underscores my original point: Why would 12 people write all those NT documents, challenging that the OT authenticates them as does the thousands of contemporaneous eyewitnesses, to promulgate a lie?

Why oh why.

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

 

[Audie]

The Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

 

[Audie]

Which underscores my original point: Why would 12 people write all those NT documents, challenging that the OT authenticates them as does the thousands of contemporaneous eyewitnesses, to promulgate a lie?

Why would they challenge it, indeed?

Going against Jesus? Paul sure came up with his
own version, not what ""Jesus" (supposedly)
said (to whoever gave their version).

Matthew 5:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not too sure you are the one to talk about
science, which is, in the event, irrelevant here.

The snake story is an obvious phony. It makes
no sense.

It would be terrific to re enact it in a courtroom
setting, we'd have the jury and audience in stitches.

As for stories about miracles, those are much cheaper
than a dime a dozen. They come from all over the
world, thick as hairs on a dog's back.

NOT ONE has ever been demonstrated to be real.
Bring in science for that one Show a miracle.
Or Bigfoot.

As for your pointless rhetorical question about
"11 writers", see the following: (there are more, if 8 is not enough)

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Now, do you care to try to defend the lie about
the snake, or, concede that it was a hoax.

I'm familiar with the Mormon apologetics defending the plate witnesses, which is different in scope, purpose and intent that the lengthy New Testament documents (and contain no prophecies within, either).

I think you may be referring to when Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and showed no ill effects in the Acts? Some people have natural immunity to certain toxins, I would think. What is the big deal and why aren't we instead investigating Jesus's resurrection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm familiar with the Mormon apologetics defending the plate witnesses, which is different in scope, purpose and intent that the lengthy New Testament documents (and contain no prophecies within, either).

I think you may be referring to when Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and showed no ill effects in the Acts? Some people have natural immunity to certain toxins, I would think. What is the big deal and why aren't we instead investigating Jesus's resurrection?

I think she was referring to Mark 16 15-18. But that is a part of Mark thought to have been added to the original.

 

[Audie]

I'm familiar with the Mormon apologetics defending the plate witnesses, which is different in scope, purpose and intent that the lengthy New Testament documents (and contain no prophecies within, either).

I think you may be referring to when Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and showed no ill effects in the Acts? Some people have natural immunity to certain toxins, I would think. What is the big deal and why aren't we instead investigating Jesus's resurrection?

The Mormon testimony is signed and sworn to
before God, which puts it a notch above anything
from the NT.

But regardless; the rhetorical thing about why would they
"die for a lie" etc really just does not impress
anyone but the already convinced. You can save
yourself the effort.

As for the snake story, it appears you never thought
about it much. I would not have either, but my boyfriend
of years ago was a herpetologist.

And, of course, a scientist-as to a lot of other
people-knows that focusing in intensely on a
small thing can reveal a great deal about a far
larger picture.

Feynman, among others, noted that if you knew
all there is to know about a drop of water you'd
have most of the secrets of the universe.

So-snake story. If it is "fishy", what does that tell you?

Let;s see if it is.

First detail-there are no vipers or other poisonous
snakes on that island.

You may have to go extra-biblical to explain how
there was one where there aren't any.

Oh and dont bother with the "natural immunity".
Doesn't happen. That is just made up.

And it would spoil the story, no?
For lo, the point of the whole story was to show
"Paul" was under "God's" protection.

Another detail- A viper strikes so fast, all you
see is a flicker of movement. So IF you get
bitten by one, it does not "cling" as per
story.

There is a lot more wrong with the story. You
read it, try to visualize the whole situation.
See if you see anything that does sound
realistic. There is quite a list, so you should
be able to see some of them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think she was referring to Mark 16 15-18. But that is a part of Mark thought to have been added to the original.

Thank you, I'm familiar with the Markan addition, what with studying the Bible for decades and my Bachelor's in NT studies and so on. PAUL IS NOT IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK. It's ACTS.

The Markan addition is premised on the "surprise of the resurrection" despite the prior verse before the addition stating the women found an EMPTY TOMB.

If only skeptics would read the Bible instead of Googling how to criticize it, then again, IMO, it's a spiritual blindness, not lack of reading ability.

 

[Audie]

Thank you, I'm familiar with the Markan addition, what with studying the Bible for decades and my Bachelor's in NT studies and so on. PAUL IS NOT IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK. It's ACTS.

The Markan addition is premised on the "surprise of the resurrection" despite the prior verse before the addition stating the women found an EMPTY TOMB.

If only skeptics would read the Bible instead of Googling how to criticize it, then again, IMO, it's a spiritual blindness, not lack of reading ability.

I have read it, and I dont google how to criticize it.

If only "believers" would quit making things up!
(making things up is character blindness)

Speaking of blindness, did you see anything yet?

See if you see anything that does sound
realistic. There is quite a list, so you should
be able to see some of them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Mormon testimony is signed and sworn to
before God, which puts it a notch above anything
from the NT.

But regardless; the rhetorical thing about why would they
"die for a lie" etc really just does not impress
anyone but the already convinced. You can save
yourself the effort.

As for the snake story, it appears you never thought
about it much. I would not have either, but my boyfriend
of years ago was a herpetologist.

And, of course, a scientist-as to a lot of other
people-knows that focusing in intensely on a
small thing can reveal a great deal about a far
larger picture.

Feynman, among others, noted that if you knew
all there is to know about a drop of water you'd
have most of the secrets of the universe.

So-snake story. If it is "fishy", what does that tell you?

Let;s see if it is.

First detail-there are no vipers or other poisonous
snakes on that island.

You may have to go extra-biblical to explain how
there was one where there aren't any.

Oh and dont bother with the "natural immunity".
Doesn't happen. That is just made up.

And it would spoil the story, no?
For lo, the point of the whole story was to show
"Paul" was under "God's" protection.

Another detail- A viper strikes so fast, all you
see is a flicker of movement. So IF you get
bitten by one, it does not "cling" as per
story.

There is a lot more wrong with the story. You
read it, try to visualize the whole situation.
See if you see anything that does sound
realistic. There is quite a list, so you should
be able to see some of them.

Some of the Mormon folks recanted, famously. Smith's wife and son started a renegade sect! The NT writers made oaths before God in the NT.

I haven't thought about the Acts story much--thanks for leading me to another Bible study:

* Are you saying you understand there were no vipers on that island 2,000 years ago? Or are you saying species cannot be moved to locations via shipping? Because in Florida, orange groves have been lost in recent years to an invasive insect brought over on shipping from China, via Lowe's. Oh that's right--it bothers you when I use logic to think about Bible issues and go "extra-biblical".

* Of course, it is likewise impossible for a viper to be picked up, cling to anyone, or wrap around anyone's arm.

Again, do you want to share with me from your treasure trove of serpents or consider whether the Christ truly rose from the dead?!

 

[Audie]

Some of the Mormon folks recanted, famously. Smith's wife and son started a renegade sect! The NT writers made oaths before God in the NT.

I haven't thought about the Acts story much--thanks for leading me to another Bible study:

* Are you saying you understand there were no vipers on that island 2,000 years ago? Or are you saying species cannot be moved to locations via shipping? Because in Florida, orange groves have been lost in recent years to an invasive insect brought over on shipping from China, via Lowe's. Oh that's right--it bothers you when I use logic to think about Bible issues and go "extra-biblical".

* Of course, it is likewise impossible for a viper to be picked up, cling to anyone, or wrap around anyone's arm.

Again, do you want to share with me from your treasure trove of serpents or consider whether the Christ truly rose from the dead?!

I see that the paucity of your case must be buttressed
with snark.

And that you still have not bothered to think about
the story, and, are still trying to change the
subject.

But to your comments-

There are plenty of snakes on the island, and plenty
of rough wild land for them to live on. Just no vipers.

It is of course possible, sort of, that there were vipers
then, but not now.
Possible, that one came in on a ship.
Possible that he managed to find that one,
not some common local variety.
Possible that this-lets get snarky now-viper was
god-magiced so that it behaved completely out
of character, so as to make a good story.

Or even possible that an ordinary one would behave
so strangely.

Possible that a person could walk about picking
up sticks, here and there, and not notice that
he picked up a snake?

Possible that people standing around a fire
possibly could identify a snake by species
while it is being thrashed about.

Lets re enact it. Bring the jury out to a field, on a rainy
day. Have them stand around a fire.
Let some snakes go, and scatter some sticks.

Lets now see you gather sticks, and complete the
story.

We can even get a museum quality rubber snake, and you thrash that about for the jury, and then check how many
of them identify it to species.

You see nothing unbelievable in the story?

Possible that the dog really did eat the homework.
But that is only one possible but deeply improbable.

 

[Katzpur]

Some of the Mormon folks recanted, famously. Smith's wife and son started a renegade sect!

None of the eleven witness to The Book of Mormon ever recanted what they said their experience was (famously or otherwise). Some of them left the Church over personal disputes with Joseph Smith, but all eleven stuck with what they had initially said in their testimonies which are printed in the front of The Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's son founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (several years after his father's martyrdom, as he was only twelve years old at the time of his father's death). His mother (Joseph's widow) had some major issues with Brigham Young and did not accept his succession as the new leader of the Church when Joseph was killed. I'm just clearing this matter up for you because I'm sure that you would prefer to know the truth so that you don't inadvertently continue to pass along inaccurate information in the future.

 

[ecco]

But, nevertheless, how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

And is it so hard to memorize such pithy statements like "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth!" Have you ever said anything so pithy? :0

I wasn't asking about short statements. I wasn't asking about how you can memorize passages that you read hundreds of times.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, I'm familiar with the Markan addition, what with studying the Bible for decades and my Bachelor's in NT studies and so on. PAUL IS NOT IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK. It's ACTS.

The Markan addition is premised on the "surprise of the resurrection" despite the prior verse before the addition stating the women found an EMPTY TOMB.

If only skeptics would read the Bible instead of Googling how to criticize it, then again, IMO, it's a spiritual blindness, not lack of reading ability.

Wow, baseless criticism plus an inability to follow a conversation. I never implied that the idea of handling snakes was from the event in Acts. There is no claim in Acts that others would be able to do the same. Though there is a perfectly reasonable explanation to the Paul event. The snake could have been just a snake. People from areas with poisonous snakes tend to assume all snakes are poisonous. A better safe than sorry approach.

The verses in Mark specifically make the claim that people would be able to handle snakes. That you apparently forgot does not speak well of your supposed degree.

 

[ecco]

Assuming Matthew wrote his gospel in 70 AD. It wasn't published for about 300 years later. By that time there was no one around to say or write:
Hey, wait a minute, I was there. That Jesus fella, he didn't feed no one. Him and a couple of his followers ate, but they sure didn't give us any.
In any case, by that time coming out and criticizing scripture likely got ya in big trouble.

Please cite your reference for this, since I'm aware that 1st and 2nd century writers quoted hundreds of Matthew verses, so that indeed, the entire NT could be reconstructed from their correspondence! They treated these quotations and nothing less than God's Word!

Cite my reference for what? That after 150 years there was no one alive to to say "Hey, wait a minute, I was there. That Jesus fella, he didn't feed no one. "

Are you claiming that people 2000 years ago lived to age 150?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see that the paucity of your case must be buttressed
with snark.

And that you still have not bothered to think about
the story, and, are still trying to change the
subject.

But to your comments-

There are plenty of snakes on the island, and plenty
of rough wild land for them to live on. Just no vipers.

It is of course possible, sort of, that there were vipers
then, but not now.
Possible, that one came in on a ship.
Possible that he managed to find that one,
not some common local variety.
Possible that this-lets get snarky now-viper was
god-magiced so that it behaved completely out
of character, so as to make a good story.

Or even possible that an ordinary one would behave
so strangely.

Possible that a person could walk about picking
up sticks, here and there, and not notice that
he picked up a snake?

Possible that people standing around a fire
possibly could identify a snake by species
while it is being thrashed about.

Lets re enact it. Bring the jury out to a field, on a rainy
day. Have them stand around a fire.
Let some snakes go, and scatter some sticks.

Lets now see you gather sticks, and complete the
story.

We can even get a museum quality rubber snake, and you thrash that about for the jury, and then check how many
of them identify it to species.

You see nothing unbelievable in the story?

Possible that the dog really did eat the homework.
But that is only one possible but deeply improbable.

I see both "unbelievable things in the story" and "that God does unbelievable [supernatural] things in the scriptures". Chief among them--loving people like us who have opposed Him.

And for many years now, I've always taken Paul's nonchalance as indicative of his assurance that he'd be just fine--there's a parallel story where someone dies during his sermon and Paul calmly goes over and resurrects the chap.

I think you are being, well, you, I mean, I believe in a virgin birth and Christ's resurrection from the dead--and also I believe/know/understand that I now bear eternal life and will resurrect from the dead as well.

What is your point? What are you driving at? That people who love Jesus and have been saved believe supernatural occurrences are simple for a powerful being to perform? You are wasting both of our time IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

None of the eleven witness to The Book of Mormon ever recanted what they said their experience was (famously or otherwise). Some of them left the Church over personal disputes with Joseph Smith, but all eleven stuck with what they had initially said in their testimonies which are printed in the front of The Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's son founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (several years after his father's martyrdom, as he was only twelve years old at the time of his father's death). His mother (Joseph's widow) had some major issues with Brigham Young and did not accept his succession as the new leader of the Church when Joseph was killed. I'm just clearing this matter up for you because I'm sure that you would prefer to know the truth so that you don't inadvertently continue to pass along inaccurate information in the future.

Respectfully, I disagree. I'm familiar with the apologetics for this on both sides--however, let's keep "the main thing the main thing"?

Mormonism as I understand it teaches a different gospel than the Bible--the Bible teaches salvation was done totally and utterly on the Cross and in Christ's resurrection. I trust Jesus for salvation as I understand it. LDS, as I understands it, teaches a gospel mixing faith and works, which may not be a saving gospel IMHO.