Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but you did not state what part needed support or why. I do not know in what areas you are uninformed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Another personal attack? I am not the one that fails to support claims. Have you forgotten your last debacle already?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Human men taught.
Said I'm a man baby out of a human being mothers body. Cell ovah ova ovary.
Is science medical human it is exact. No argument allowed human man. Healer advised. Holiest humans spiritual realisations. Conscious.
Human man adult status a group of men knowledgeable. Advised. My human life continuance on gods earth.
As told why. Exact advice.
My life. My planet plus my human life versus satanic theists nuclear sun terms plus fake machines that never existed.
Only mass had. Notice mass only existed in two places. No machine.
Mass came first above. We stand on mass.
Man's warning today do not let machines destroy life on earth.
Exact.
Man says I'm born a baby by ovary of a human woman. That converts back by cell advice into a man human. My father adult life body is deceased.
Taught. As my consciousness is innate aware.
So my baby man develops back into the human mans adult life body who died. I become by holy mother conception just a man's body type with man's cell. My holy mother human.
My icon should be factual. Holy human mother man baby.
No father status or fake statements. No daughter sister statements.
As historic man was medical advised. Humans only chance of life existing.
No bible theist information allowed. Testimonial stated in exact two places. In human history. I was advised. Said men of my human hypocrisy.
Both books were shut.
Man of science mind psyche today is totally advised. Don't read that advice.
No religious science past terms are allowed. Both books were shut only evidence for legal.
Medical science only. Machines used today to look at science caused human cell damage. To medically be informed how can I assist sacrificed life and body of my equal human family.
Baby man son. His holy human mother life.
So adult man is advised. His sister daughter was always his natural baby man's life continuance. By body human.
Medical advice is direct. Body human advised.
As an unnatural rich man then and now. That I cannot change my inheritance because I'm a stated hypocrite. Yet I confessed I was.
Is the only true to advice of human life. Never including gods earth mass by any term.
As only mineral dusts are involved in humans biological cell health.
Already known. There was never a God thesis why life existed. The God thesis was human direct to a machine only.
Said I'm a man baby out of a human being mothers body. Cell ovah ova ovary.
Is science medical human it is exact. No argument allowed human man. Healer advised. Holiest humans spiritual realisations. Conscious.
Human man adult status a group of men knowledgeable. Advised. My human life continuance on gods earth.
As told why. Exact advice.
My life. My planet plus my human life versus satanic theists nuclear sun terms plus fake machines that never existed.
Only mass had. Notice mass only existed in two places. No machine.
Mass came first above. We stand on mass.
Man's warning today do not let machines destroy life on earth.
Exact.
Man says I'm born a baby by ovary of a human woman. That converts back by cell advice into a man human. My father adult life body is deceased.
Taught. As my consciousness is innate aware.
So my baby man develops back into the human mans adult life body who died. I become by holy mother conception just a man's body type with man's cell. My holy mother human.
My icon should be factual. Holy human mother man baby.
No father status or fake statements. No daughter sister statements.
As historic man was medical advised. Humans only chance of life existing.
No bible theist information allowed. Testimonial stated in exact two places. In human history. I was advised. Said men of my human hypocrisy.
Both books were shut.
Man of science mind psyche today is totally advised. Don't read that advice.
No religious science past terms are allowed. Both books were shut only evidence for legal.
Medical science only. Machines used today to look at science caused human cell damage. To medically be informed how can I assist sacrificed life and body of my equal human family.
Baby man son. His holy human mother life.
So adult man is advised. His sister daughter was always his natural baby man's life continuance. By body human.
Medical advice is direct. Body human advised.
As an unnatural rich man then and now. That I cannot change my inheritance because I'm a stated hypocrite. Yet I confessed I was.
Is the only true to advice of human life. Never including gods earth mass by any term.
As only mineral dusts are involved in humans biological cell health.
Already known. There was never a God thesis why life existed. The God thesis was human direct to a machine only.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Matthew and Luke copied Mark. The essay based on Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction here - The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org provides several strong arguments.
Scholars have demonstrated that Matthew used the Greek OT to compose the Sermon and enough sources from Mark have been identified that there isn't even room for oral tradition.
All of the mythical aspects are re-workings of other fiction, OT and so on. Mark was highly educated for his time and definitely knew the region , towns, places, leaders and his fictive narrative was set in the real world. This is not uncommon for religious scripture. The supernatural aspects are straight out of Greek, Persian and some Roman mythologies.
There is no reason to believe any of this is anything but another mythology.
You don't know what ancient Jewish people considered embarrassing?
In one account from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a very young Jesus is said to have used his supernatural powers first to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him.[9] If this tradition had been accepted as worthy of inclusion at some key juncture in the formation of the Christian Bible (and hence integrated in one way or another among the canonical Gospels), arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing—especially strict believers in biblical inerrancy. But as is suggested by the existence of this early non-canonical pericope, it must not have been embarrassing to some early Christians.
A further limitation is the possibility that what could be classed as embarrassing could also be an intentionally created account designed to provoke a reaction. For instance, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been written as an example of the consequences of denial. Matthew 10:32–33: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
A still further limitation is the fact that of all the criteria to evaluate authenticity, the criterion of embarrassment may be the most easily forged. A person who knows that having extra witnesses will bolster their credibility still has a lot of hard and uncertain work to do before they will have those witnesses on their side. A person who knows that including embarrassing details will make them more believable need do no more work than invent some embarrassing details.
if a miracle in the koran is atested by multiple sources has explanatory power and explanatory scope, I would accept that there is good evidence for such miracle[/QUOTE]
One last point that should be mentioned is that there are a number of verses that refer to historical details revealed in the Qur’an and stress that this information became known to Prophet Muhammad only through the Qur’an. These verses imply or explicitly state that had Muhammad not been a true Prophet of God, he would not have known these historical accounts. For instance, after relating the story of Prophet Noah, God states:
Those are some tidings of the unseen which We reveal to you [O Muhammad!]; you did not know them nor did your people before this [the Qur’an]; so be patient; the [prosperous] end is for the dutiful ones (11.49).
The term “tidings” in the following verse denotes the plot of Joseph’s brothers to get rid of him — another story that the Prophet learned about through the Qur’an: These are some tidings of the unseen which We reveal to you [O Muhammad!], and you were not with them (Joseph’s brothers) when they concerted their plans together when they were scheming (12.102). Another example is God’s following words about His revelation to Prophet Moses:
And We gave Moses the Book, after We destroyed the generations of old, [as] clear testimonies for people, and a guidance and a mercy, that they may remember (28.43). And you [O Muhammad!] were not on the western side [of the Mount] when We handed the matter to Moses, and you were not one of the witnesses (28.44). But We brought forth generations, and their lives dragged on for them; and you were not dwelling with the people of Midian, reciting to them Our verses, but We have sent [you as] a Messenger (28.45). And you were not on the side of the Mount when We called [Moses], but this [knowledge that We have revealed to you] is a mercy from your Lord for you to warn a people to whom no warner before you came, that they may give heed (28.46).
God stresses that the Prophet was not on the western side of the Mount to know about the Tablets of the Torah, which He wrote for Moses there, nor was he living among the people of Midian to know of what happened to Moses there after he left Egypt escaping Pharaoh’s wrath. God explains that Muhammad acquired this knowledge because God made him one of His Messengers: “but We have sent [you as] a Messenger.” In other words, that knowledge is proof that Muhammad is indeed a Messenger of God. Finally, God reminds His Messenger that he was not on the side of the Mount when God called on Moses, but that He has given him this knowledge as a mercy from Him so that he would warn people who had not had a warner before him “that they may give heed.” Confirming the prophethood of Muhammad and the divine source of the Qur’an is one goal that historical accounts in the Qur’an has.
Verse 3.44 makes a similar statement about God’s revelation of historical details about Mary’s childhood.
Islam claims all sorts of miracles?
Islamic view of miracles - Wikipedia.
Miracles Of Quran.
You can read Islamic apologetics all day? There are also Hadiths that still survive that tell of Muhammad doing embarrassing things, which to Muslims prove the authenticy of Islam.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
It does, I think it will be ignored by the believers unfortunately
joelr
Well-Known Member
So we agree, by your state position, that the writers who were either eye-witnesses or at the least knew what happened are much more reliable that apologists and today's scholars.
Appreciate the confirmation of what I was saying.
Mark knows most of all what his sources were. But we are getting a good idea of where he constructed this story from. He used a lot of OT narratives for one. He definitely used fictive literary devices, quite a few. The text is as fictive as King Arthur, same score on the Rank Raglin mythotype scale.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Well then eyewitnesses saw the angel from the OT Gabrielle reading the true scripture. It says so. It must be true. Christianity is wrong and God sent an angel to fix it. They saw it, it's true.
98: The Clear Proof
98:1 Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters could not have left off (erring) till the clear proof came unto them,
98:2 A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages
98:3 Containing correct scriptures.
98:4 Nor were the People of the Scripture divided until after the clear proof came unto them.
98:5 And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him, as men by nature upright, and to establish worship and to pay the poor-due. That is true religion.
98:6 Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
98:7 (And) lo! those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings.
98:8 Their reward is with their Lord: Gardens of Eden underneath which rivers flow, wherein they dwell for ever. Allah hath pleasure in them and they have pleasure in Him. This is (in store) for him who feareth his Lord.
There were plenty more witnesses to Gabrielle giving updates on Christianity:
The FACT is, there are numerous instances and countless witnesses who saw the process of the Quranic revelation which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad shallalahu alaihi wa sallam gradually over a period of 23 years when the Prophet was both living in the city of Makkah and Medina (hence, NOT only when he was alone in the cave of Hira which is near Makkah):
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3634
Narrated 'Aishah:
that Al-Harith bin Hisham asked the Prophet (ﷺ): 'How does the Revelation come to you?' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell and that is the hardest upon me, and sometimes the angel will appear to me like a man, and he will speak to me such that I understand what he says.'" 'Aishah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while the Revelation was descending upon him on an extremely cold day. Then it ceased and his forehead was flooded with sweat."
Sunan an-Nasa'i 2668
It was narrated from Safwan bin Umayyah, from his father that he said:
"I wished that I could see the Messenger of Allah when Revelation was coming down to him. While we were in Al-Jirranah and the Prophet was in a tent, Revelation was coming down to him and 'Umar gestured to me to come. So I put my head into the tent. A man had come to him who had entered Ihram wearing a said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what do you say concerning a man who entered Ihram wearing a Jubbah?'Then (because of this question) the Revelation came. The Prophet started to breath deeply, and when it was over he said: 'Where is the man who asked me just now?' The man was brought to him, and he saidA: 'As for the Jubbah, take it off, and as for the perfume, wash it off, then enter Ihram."
Sahih Muslim 1180 e
Ya'la reported:
"We were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that a person came to him with a cloak on him having the traces of scent. He said, Messenger of Allah, I put on Ihram for 'Umra: what should I do? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet and did not make him any reply. And 'Umar screened him and it was (usual) with 'Umar that when the revelation descended upon him, he provided him shade (with the help of a piece of cloth). I (the person who came to the Holy Prophet) said: I said to 'Umar I wish to project my head into the cloth (to see how the Prophet receives revelation). So when the revelation began to descend upon him 'Umar wrapped him (the Holy Prophet) with cloth I came to him and projected my head with him into the cloth, and saw him (the Holy Prophet) (receiving the revelation). When he (the Holy Prophet) was relieved (of its burden), he said: Where is the inquirer who was just inquiring about 'Umra? That man came to him. Thereupon he (the Messenger of Allah) said: Take off the cloak from (your body) and wash the traces of perfume which were upon you, and do in 'Umra what you did in Hajj."
Sahih Muslim 2794 a
`Abdullah (b. Mas`ud) reported:
As I was going along with Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) in a cultivable land and he (the Holy Prophet) was walking with the support of a wood, a group of Jews happened to meet him. Some of them said to the others: Ask him about the Soul. They said: What is your doubt about it? There is a possibility that you may ask him about anything (the answer of) which you may not like. They said: Ask him. So one amongst them asked him about the Soul. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) kept quiet and he gave no reply and I came to know that revelation was being sent to him, so I stood at my place and thus this revelation descended upon him:" They ask thee about the Soul. Say: The Soul is by the Commandment of my Lord, and of Knowledge you are given but a little"
I guess it's true because it says so!
joelr
Well-Known Member
Right but an angel from the OT visited Muhammad, with many witnesses to explain that Paul was wrong and was using Pagan mythology. The angel gave the proper updates and a painful doom awaits those who ignore it.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Humans live in their own land nation.
Owning their human father's national human DNA.
Ground strata in each country different or similar.
As a humans occult seen manifested conjured experience was ground to heavens changed. By human machine sciences.
As I live in North the south the east or the west.
My father my nation.my DNA experience not the same as yours.
Some mountains face. Blackened scorched.
Some melted.
Some converted into landslide dusts.
Examples.
Moses was a written testimonial after all events.
Same reason it was caused. Human machine one of your one of conversion. Same result isn't an equals answer to natural mass said human lying science theists.
As science isn't God earth.
Earths mass sacrificed differently.
So is the resurrection correct to God earths mass?
A big no it's not.
If you said what did I human confess as a scientific testimonial about gods mass resurrection?
I gave it man's sin. Sink holes.
What did gods body arise in zero space used calculus history a theory only?
A volcano.
Is your scientific resurrection the same?
No says lying human Satanists.
Was all of the earth an erected volcano is the question...what arose of gods rock naturally?
Oh said men. I tried to put earths mass into a total molten body.
How much Satanists in science love humanity.
So when gods body was resurrected as a not God but a variant. You have to ask what did you scientist human do to gods body?
His answer I tried to convert it into my bio conscious gas thesis. What rock never was. In the Jerusalem area as Jesus. Nowhere else.
Owning their human father's national human DNA.
Ground strata in each country different or similar.
As a humans occult seen manifested conjured experience was ground to heavens changed. By human machine sciences.
As I live in North the south the east or the west.
My father my nation.my DNA experience not the same as yours.
Some mountains face. Blackened scorched.
Some melted.
Some converted into landslide dusts.
Examples.
Moses was a written testimonial after all events.
Same reason it was caused. Human machine one of your one of conversion. Same result isn't an equals answer to natural mass said human lying science theists.
As science isn't God earth.
Earths mass sacrificed differently.
So is the resurrection correct to God earths mass?
A big no it's not.
If you said what did I human confess as a scientific testimonial about gods mass resurrection?
I gave it man's sin. Sink holes.
What did gods body arise in zero space used calculus history a theory only?
A volcano.
Is your scientific resurrection the same?
No says lying human Satanists.
Was all of the earth an erected volcano is the question...what arose of gods rock naturally?
Oh said men. I tried to put earths mass into a total molten body.
How much Satanists in science love humanity.
So when gods body was resurrected as a not God but a variant. You have to ask what did you scientist human do to gods body?
His answer I tried to convert it into my bio conscious gas thesis. What rock never was. In the Jerusalem area as Jesus. Nowhere else.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
Mark composed his mythical tale of Jesus using many different sources: most definitely the Septuagint, possibly even Homer, and, here we can see, probably also Paul’s Epistles. From these, and his own creative impulses, he weaved together a coherent string of implausible tales in which neither people nor nature behave the way they would in reality, each and every one with allegorical meaning or missionary purpose. Once we account for all this material, there is very little left. In fact, really, nothing left.
We have very good evidence for all these sources. For example, that Mark emulates stories and lifts ideas from the Psalms, Deuteronomy, the Kings literature, and so on, is well established and not rationally deniable. That he likewise lifts from and riffs on Paul’s Epistles is, as you can now see, fairly hard to deny. By contrast, we have exactly no evidence whatever that anything in Mark came to him by oral tradition. It is thus curious that anyone still assumes some of it did. That Mark’s sources and methods were literary is well proved. That any of his sources or methods were oral in character is, by contrast, a baseless presumption.
Dr Carrier
joelr
Well-Known Member
The apostles are in a story? In real life, for over 100 years Christians couldn't decide what Christianity was? You have no evidence of any apostles being killed?
These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:
- Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
- Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
- Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
- Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
- Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
- Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
- Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]
what scholar? When did they say that? Historians say a man was mythicized as a Jewish version of the Greek demigod savior.
Many Scholars find that to be part of the myth.
"The absence of any reference to the story of Jesus' empty tomb in the Pauline epistles and the Easter kerygma (preaching or proclamation) of the earliest church, originating perhaps in the Christian community of Antioch in the 30s and preserved in 1 Corinthians,[44] has led some scholars to suggest that Mark invented it."
There is far more explanatory power in the idea that in these are stories and there was no resurrection or empty tomb. As explained savior deities were appearing out of Hellenism spreading around the area and resurrection was already happening with savior Gods. This is another version, a Jewish version. There are so many lines of evidence to back this up.
Resurrection came into Christianity from other religions.
"Osiris was also resurrected, according to Plutarch, on the “third day,” and died during a full moon, just like Christ: Passover occurs during the full moon; and in Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 39 and 42, Osiris dies on the 17th of Athyr, the concluding day of the full moon, and is raised on the 19th, two days later—thus three days inclusively, just like Jesus."
"Inanna is the earliest known resurrected god. For her, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets inscribed in Sumeria over a thousand years before Christianity, plainly describing her humiliation, trial, execution, and crucifixion, and her resurrection three days later. After she is stripped naked and judgment is pronounced against her, Inanna is “turned into a corpse” and “the corpse was hung from a nail” and “after three days and three nights” her assistants ask for her corpse and resurrect her (by feeding her the “water” and “food” of life), and “Inanna arose” according to what had been her plan all along, because she knew her father “would surely bring me back to life,” exactly as transpires in the story (quotations are from the tablets, adapting the translation of Samuel Noah Kramer in History Begins at Sumer). This cult continued to be practiced into the Christian period, Tyre being a major center of her worship. By then, there is some evidence her resurrection tale was shifted to her consort Tammuz, one of several resurrected deities the Greeks called Adonis."
"
Zalmoxis was also a resurrected savior. Greeks making fun of the Thracian cult worshiping him made up the polemic that he didn’t really die, he just hid in a cave, and thus pretended to have resurrected from the dead. But this polemic tells us the Thracians did believe Zalmoxis had died and rose from the dead, and appeared to disciples on earth to prove it (see my discussion in Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 100-05). His disciples then believed they would benefit from his power to bring them into eternal life in paradise. In a book that became standard reading in the schools of rhetoric all Christian biblical authors had to have attended just to write such complex works in Greek as they did, Herodotus reports that Zalmoxis “fed the leaders among his countrymen” in a hall “and taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants would ever die, but that they would go to a place where they would live forever and have all good things,” and then vanished underground “for three years, while the Thracians wished him back and mourned him for dead,” and then “in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what he had told them,” thus using his own resurrection to prove theirs (Histories 4.94–95–96; though I do wonder if it was actually three days and not years, as that was the case in the resurrection cults of Osiris, Inanna, and Adonis, as we’ll see shortly). The story entails these cultists believed in their savior god’s bodily death and resurrection. Because that’s the only way the Greek polemic Herodotus is citing would make sense, as it imagines Zalmoxis appearing in his same body and visiting his followers to verify he was alive again—and not merely appearing in visions, nor as a ghost. Accordingly, Celsus, the earliest known critic of Christianity, included Zalmoxis in his list of resurrected deities (as attested by Origen, Against Celsus 2.55)
"
just apply it to the whole thing since the whole thing didn't have one ounce of support. After all, no everyone can be as smart as you are.
Supportive documentation?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It doesn't need it. You really should not be making any demands at all if you know nothing about the topic.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I finally had some time to watch the video this morning is there any specific point that you want to have conversation on?
Some of the claims
1 Infinitie past (philosophy): the refutation was based on a strawman, nobody is claiming that the concept of infinity is logically absurd, nobody denies that in the world of mathematics the concept is perfectly coherent and useful. The claim is that in the real world you can’t have an actual infinite number of things (pretty much like in the real world you cant Imaginary numbers, you can’t have i+2 balls in a room
2 Infinite past(science): of course there are models that suggest a past infinite, but having model is not a big of a deal, even YEC and Flat earhthers have their own models. The claim is that the current evidence that we have suggests that the universe had a beginning……. For example everyone in the video agrees that any universe that is UN average on a state of expansion would have to be a universe with a beginning, and our universe seems to be expanding (and has always been expanding) sure we don’t know with 100% certainty, but that is what the evidence suggests.
3 Causality; well WLC provides 3 arguments in support of premise 1 in the KCA and the video only addressed 1 of these argument (the weakest in my opinion) but if the atheist is forces to deny the causal principle in order to avoid the KCA I would see that as a victory for the theist.
leroy
Well-Known Member
The purpose is to show that the premises are more likely to be true than wrong, not that the premises are 100 certainly true.
For example we are not 100% sure that life could have not existed in a universe without stars planets, atoms and molecules, but it seems to be a valid assumption and likely to be true.
But if your standards are 100% certainty then obviously the argument fails by those standards. …
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yet WLC has been refuted thoroughly when it comes to the Kalam as well.
But you will probably not be able to ever understand how he is refuted. Perhaps if you could answer this question you will be able to see how:
Exactly what did WLC "prove" with his abuse of the Kalam Cosmological argument?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since WLC has no education in the sciences he cannot even do that. Which means that you just admitted that he has been refuted.
By the way, being refuted in this case only means that his argument has been shown to be without merit. At best all that WLC can claim is that:
"The universe looks pretty fine tuned to me". The problem is that when it comes to the sciences WLC is tone deaf. His opinion carries no weight at all.
Some will try to claim that WLC gives an absolute proof. You know that is not true. He did not come even close. In fact I think that WLC himself believes that he gave an exact proof. Do you have a quote of him merely saying that it is "more likely"? That appears to be a laughable claim on its face since he has no ability to calculate the odds.
Can you please tell me what you think that WLC "proved".
And no, my standards are not 100%. That was WLC's error not mine. He put it in the form of a logical argument. That requires a 100% surety. Don't blame others for things that they did not do. He should have put his argument in a different form, but he knows that he would lose that one even faster.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You need to drop the "your standards" BS. Those were Lane's standards. That was the form of argument that he used. If he wanted to make it a probabilistic argument then he should have put it in that form. But he has no way of calculating the odds properly. That is why he went for an all or nothing sort of argument. He knew that he could not calculate the odds of the universe being fine tuned. Or I at least hope he knows that. No astrophysicist can properly calculate the odds since we do not know enough.
Do you remember hearing the argument that if the Universe expanded faster or slower it would either have collapsed or expanded out of control? That is a claim used by Fine Tunas. Carroll did not present the math, that could not be done in a short debated, but he did make a claim that could have been checked. His claim was that we know the odds of that happening. The odds are 1. Or in other words, that is how it was going to be. He got that from solving the problem using General Relativity.
Luckily GR does not "refute God" but it does show that when it comes to the rate of expansion of the universe that a God is not needed.
leroy
Well-Known Member
How does that affect the claim that most of the verifiable historical / geographic / demographic / political / economical details reported in the gospels happen to be true?
Embarrassing is simply anything that goes against the purpose or the agenda of the author.
For example if I claimed to have seen a Ghost and I claim that my only witness is my 3yo daughter, then it is likely that I am not just inventing stuff and lying otherwise I would have invented a more credible witness.
The gospels are full of such details, for example death by crucifixion is an example of an embarrassing detail, the messiah was not supposed to die, let alone die in such a shameful way, …. If the authors of the gospels would have had the intend to lie in order to promote their agenda they would have invented a more honorable death.
It´s unrealistic to say that the authors of the gospels invented those embarrassing details so that Christian scholars in the year 2000s could formulate arguments