History 2,000 year old books found in Jordan - new evidence for Jesus?

[Max zero]

I disagree that the claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim. Most people believe in God because it's an intuitive, common sense conclusion.

In my view atheism makes the more extraordinary claims.



Actually, hearsay can be evidence. Both in the legal field and in history.



I'm really not sure what you understand the word 'evidence' to mean. I think you often confuse it with 'proof'.

That there is evidence for God is almost indisputable.

To say that there is evidence for a hypothesis is merely to say that that hypotheiss is more probable given certain facts than it would have be without those facts.

So, the hypothesis 'God's exists' is more probable given certain facts (origin of universe, fine tuning of universe, existence of objective moral values, etc) than it would be without those facts.

In other words, take those facts away and the hypothesis 'God exists' is less likely. Ergo, there's evidence for God (you might not think very good evidence, but it's clearly evidence).

Even atheists should be able to acknowledge the truth of that fairly uncontroversial statement.

You think claiming the existence of s supernatural being beyond space and time who created the universe and watches all is not an extraordinary claim? If that your definition of a ordinary claim I would hate to see your extraordinary claim.

I stand by the statement: "There is no credible, objective, falsifiable evidence of God and there never will be." 2000 years and counting.

You set the bar for religious beliefs so low that almost anything can be used as evidence.

So, the hypothesis 'God's exists' is more probable given certain facts (origin of universe, fine tuning of universe, existence of objective moral values, etc

They are all facts are they?

 

[Max zero]

You are right, I can't. That is why I say have a look at Jesus, see if you can have your own experience if you really, really want one, with God.

So don't say your religious experience is on par with a medical one because it's clearly not.

 

[CharacterFirst]

So don't say your religious experience is on par with a medical one because it's clearly not.

Yes it is. Its just that you don't think it is.

 

[Max zero]

Yes it is. Its just that you don't think it is.

You already admit that your religious experience is unverifiable yet you consider on the same level as a medical interaction that can?

It's not a question of what I think it's a question of what is. For all I know you could be delusional. If I said I have had open heart surgery it wouldn't be particularly hard to prove whether I was telling the truth or not.

 

[Pie eyed]

Aren't the non-religious who reject faith because it conflicts with their reason, reasoning based on principles established by faith.

Constant claims by those who base their beliefs on faith that any other's belief is equally as faith based really become boring.

I'm sure we have had this discussion about the various defintions which can apply to faith.

I base my beliefs on observation. "Faith" is something I bestow on people who have a record of doing what I expect, based on past actions.

You cannot compare this definition of the word faith with a religious faith, which is belief in the absence of observation or past experience.

 

[Suspense]

So, the hypothesis 'God's exists' is more probable given certain facts (origin of universe, fine tuning of universe, existence of objective moral values, etc) than it would be without those facts.

none of these are facts; they are all highly debated points of contention, and more probable is a value judgment.


this is the 'evidence' you're running with, is it?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Constant claims by those who base their beliefs on faith that any other's belief is equally as faith based really become boring.

I'm sure we have had this discussion about the various defintions which can apply to faith.

I base my beliefs on observation. "Faith" is something I bestow on people who have a record of doing what I expect, based on past actions.

You cannot compare this definition of the word faith with a religious faith, which is belief in the absence of observation or past experience.

Yeah. Except Xians (me at least) have had past (daily) experiences of God. Not all Xian faith is blind (some is, just as some atheists don't believe without thinking it through), it is just that some cannot see.

 

[Max zero]

Yeah. Except Xians (me at least) have had past (daily) experiences of God. Not all Xian faith is blind (some is, just as some atheists don't believe without thinking it through), it is just that some cannot see.

It's not that some cannot see it's that NO ONE can see except the person having the experience.

You say have had an experience that cannot be verified in any way, shape or form by another party. What (if any) evidence can you point to that can even suggest you have had an experience with God?

 

[JeffDunne]

Constant claims by those who base their beliefs on faith that any other's belief is equally as faith based really become boring.

They do, but there is a degree of truth to it.

You have faith in your own ability to reason. Like most humans, that faith is reinforced every day of your life. It isn't infallible but your faith is based on the self correcting nature of self questioning.

You also have faith in the ability of man to create a moral framework that gives everyone equal opportunity. This is where religious people differ.

Some might say that faith is misplaced and there is probably ample evidence around the world to suggest that is true. Hierarchical societies have shown us our greatest weakness in this regard.

You see religion as part of that problem. Others see religion as a solution to that problem.

We all have faith in some respects because our ability to reason encourages us to place meaning where there is none.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

none of these are facts; they are all highly debated points of contention, and more probable is a value judgment.

this is the 'evidence' you're running with, is it?

Highly debated? Come on mate.

Origin of universe

The origin of the universe with the Big Bang is a rock solid scientific fact.

Fine tuning

The fine tuning of the universe can also be considered a scientific fact, although there is some marginal debate about whether the universe is fine tuned for life, most scientists accept that it is. Physicist Paul Davies, who has published more work than any other physicist on the question, says, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".

According to historian of science James Hannam:

I will take for my evidence the facts of science that one can find in textbooks devoted to the subject. A scientific fact is not a philosophical certainty but it is something accepted by the community of mainstream scientists and forms part of what Thomas Kuhn famously called a paradigm. For this reason the mind stretching cosmological theories of Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth and others will not be on the table. Superstrings, for example, are an exciting area of research but they could very well end up in the same dustbin of history wherein we can already find phlogiston and aether (imaginary substances that formed the basis of eighteenth century chemistry and nineteenth century physics respectively). There is no direct evidence for superstrings even though they have a high explanatory value and are consistent with the evidence available.

Delving into physics textbooks we find that general relativity coupled with conclusive experiment tells us that the universe began fifteen billion years ago and that space and time were both formed together in that explosion. We further learn (confirmation of this being only recently published) that the universe will continue to expand forever at an ever slowing rate. This means there will be no big crunch and there is no cosmic concertina effect. Finally, we can see that the laws of physics depend on a number of constants that cannot change by very much without making the universe completely unable to support life-as-we-know-it. This is usually called the anthropic principle or 'fine-tuning'. Not all of the above is accepted by every working scientist but most is believed by most of them. The reasonable man can, therefore, subscribe to it all without in any way compromising himself.

Objective moral values

There is certaintly more debate about the existence of objective moral values than the other two premises. However, based on my reading, it is widely accepted among theists and atheists that objective morals values do exist (I'm not talking about 'fringe' values here, but rather 'core' values. For example, thins like murder and dishonesty have been considered wrong in every culture throughout history).

However you don't really need to consult the experts to know that objective moral values exist - I think we all know this deep down. The man who says child rape is okay is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.

As for 'more probable' being a 'value judgement' I realy don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[Pie eyed]

They do, but there is a degree of truth to it.

You have faith in your own ability to reason. Like most humans, that faith is reinforced every day of your life. It isn't infallible but your faith is based on the self correcting nature of self questioning.

You also have faith in the ability of man to create a moral framework that gives everyone equal opportunity. This is where religious people differ.

Some might say that faith is misplaced and there is probably ample evidence around the world to suggest that is true. Hierarchical societies have shown us our greatest weakness in this regard.

You see religion as part of that problem. Others see religion as a solution to that problem.

We all have faith in some respects because our ability to reason encourages us to place meaning where there is none.

"Faith" the word and it's interpretations and definitions are the crux.

Blind faith in the absence of anything to support it is nothing like the faith one would have in an rock falling to the ground every time you let go of it on earth or that next time you perceive the colour of an orange your optic nerves will transmit the same information that it did yesterday.

It is the misuse of the word out of context which causes the link to be made between untheists and the theistic.

It's an argument which has been hashed and rehashed on here and on every religious site many many times and in the end it is nothing but an attempt by those who hold a blind religious faith to firstly explain to themselves others refusal of faith and secondly to justify their own faith. In both instances it is their need which drives it and they always initiate the claims.

I have no need for faith in the religious context and dismiss their claims that I do have to have even a remotely similar "faith" to their "religious faith" in order to perceive my surroundings or carry on a sentient conversation. That requires faith yes but a totally different context, devoid of a need to believe in the absence of all observation or evidence. Faith that the internet will work or that there is actually someone out there to respond. Strangely these "faiths" are based on thousands upon thousands of events having fulfilled these "faiths" previously.

You can bang on all you like about the Bible, it's component texts and their veracity but I do not regard them as evidence of anything more that man's need to explain their existence and their propensity to make s**t up in the absence of a better understanding.

The Bible, the Abrahamic texts which make claims of a creator God whom we have to answer to at some later time is simply one of the Myriad stories invented for the numerous reasons man has made up such stories since story telling began.

Tens of thousands of other, equally logical (or illogical if you like) and incorrect stories have been told, and must all be totally disregarded in order for the Christian tales to hold sway, yet they have no more or less claims to truth than any of the huge array of myths and tales created by man's fertile imagination.

To me the absence of a God or any viable religious imperative are as obvious as the fact the moon is a sphere as seen whilst standing in my backyard.

Religious belief is akin to simply accepting it's a disc which changes shape at the behest and whim of an invisible master, despite and in the face of the evidence of your own eyes, simply to conform to the tradition their forefathers held in ignorance many decades ago.

The hint and the attraction for God and religion has always and always will be in the unexplained and the inherent insecurity and personal arrogance of the individual, terrified of his/her mortality and imminent cessation of existence. As the unexplained becomes ever smaller so shall Gods place in society, for that is solely where God and religion reside. Within the minds and traditions of social constructs. Some people have problem accepting his real insignificance in the universe. I do not. In fact it is as marvellous and awesome as the religious view of their insignificance in the face of their alleged God.



Any evidence* which contradicts my view feel free to PM, but for now, in total absence of such I'll just continue to live in the knowledge that some of what I don't know will be explained before I die, and my constituent particles become a part of some other mass, and that some won't.
If perchance I'm wrong then no doubt I'll see a few of you in Hell.
Obviously the place to be.

Over and out.

* Real evidence.

 

[Suspense]

Highly debated? Come on mate.

Origin of universe

The origin of the universe with the Big Bang is a rock solid scientific fact.

it's the prevailing theory on the origin of the universe. the theory and particularly your theistic leaning interpretation of the theory is not a fact.

Fine tuning

The fine tuning of the universe can also be considered a scientific fact, although there is some marginal debate about whether the universe is fine tuned for life, most scientists accept that it is.

it is not a fact. it is still very much a philosophical point of contention. that a circle jerk of physicists happen to agree with one another does not make it a fact. sorry.

apart from autopoietic based interpretations, i disagree with the fine tuning argument due to what is implied/presupposed in the argument.

Objective moral values

There is certaintly more debate about the existence of objective moral values than the other two premises. However, based on my reading, it is widely accepted among theists and atheists that objective morals values do exist (I'm not talking about 'fringe' values here, but rather 'core' values. For example, thins like murder and dishonesty have been considered wrong in every culture throughout history).

However you don't really need to consult the experts to know that objective moral values exist - I think we all know this deep down. The man who says child rape is okay is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.

yeah, keep reading...

not only are you wrong on 'Objective moral values' being a fact, it's not even the dominant view. meta-ethical relativism has been the prevailing view for ages now.

As for 'more probable' being a 'value judgement' I realy don't understand what you mean by this.

as in it is a judgement based upon your own values and personal biases.

 

[evo]

Objective moral values

There is certaintly more debate about the existence of objective moral values than the other two premises. However, based on my reading, it is widely accepted among theists and atheists that objective morals values do exist...

Stop reading theological apologists, and instead read some prominent 19th and 20th century philosophers then. I'd recommend Nietzsche, but just about anyone from Germany or France after Kant would do - particularly thinkers associated with existentialism, phenomenology or post modernism.

 

[CharacterFirst]

It's not that some cannot see it's that NO ONE can see except the person having the experience.

You say have had an experience that cannot be verified in any way, shape or form by another party. What (if any) evidence can you point to that can even suggest you have had an experience with God?

Well, I'm here posting about it, recalling my personal accounts as a witness to what I have experienced. Is that not evidence?

I don't know how much you have read of what I have posted over the last few weeks. But do you think I am stupid? Uneducated? Crazy? A liar? That I have something to gain by being here posting?

If you honestly think one of these, i suggest you stop wasting your time talking to me. If you don't think these things are true of me, or Serg or any other Xian, then I would encourage you to take seriously our personal testimonies, and follow the logical and rational thing to do - openly and honestly explore the possibility of an experience with God, and entertain the notion that faith (not blind faith) might be legitimate.

They are the experiences, in one form or another, of the majority of humanity today and thru history - that there is a God who can be known. That would include openly searching for an experience with God, thru a willingness to consider a faith step.

As I said, why don't you see if you can have a similar experience if you are genuinely interested?

 

[CousinOfModra]

Jack Watts...

 

[CousinOfModra]

Sorry guys. Wrong board. Over at Essendon we are posting pictures of Cars that remind us of certain players. Very funny, but I was posting on two boards at once and got them mixed up.

Ignore the Jack Watts mobile.

As you were.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

it's the prevailing theory on the origin of the universe. the theory and particularly your theistic leaning interpretation of the theory is not a fact.

You're confusing a fact with an argument which relies on a fact.

it is not a fact. it is still very much a philosophical point of contention. that a circle jerk of physicists happen to agree with one another does not make it a fact. sorry.

apart from autopoietic based interpretations, i disagree with the fine tuning argument due to what is implied/presupposed in the argument.

No offence, but I'm going with Paul Davies views and not yours.

not only are you wrong on 'Objective moral values' being a fact, it's not even the dominant view. meta-ethical relativism has been the prevailing view for ages now.

Instead of playing Battle of the Experts, let's explore this.

Do you think rape is wrong?

If so, is it objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

If you say subjectively wrong, what if there was an island on which it was culturally and socially acceptable to commit rape. Everyone is doing it. Is rape still wrong? If not, why not?

as in it is a judgement based upon your own values and personal biases.

Which one of the following statements (if true) would make the hypothesis 'God exists' more likely do you think?

1. The unvierse is eternal.
2. The universe had a beginning.

These issues have nothing to do with values and personal biases. It's a straightforward application of logic.

 

[evo]

Paul Davies is physicist though, mate. He is not an expert on the subject matter pertinent to the question. Neither is Einstein or Stephen Hawking, for that matter.

You may as well be going on the opinion of an accountant or lawyer (possibly a slight exaggeration)

Which one of the following statements (if true) would make the hypothesis 'God exists' more likely do you think?

1. The unvierse is eternal.
2. The universe had a beginning.

These issues have nothing to do with values and personal biases. It's a straightforward application of logic.

there you go.

On your own admission these questions are not a scientific matter.

 

[Suspense]

You're confusing a fact with an argument which relies on a fact.

what is the fact? that the universe has an origin? even that is debatable; it's been a philosophical point of contention since antiquity. as i said the prevailing scientific view is that the universe has an origin and this is explained by the big bang theory. this, however, is not a fact.

No offence, but I'm going with Paul Davies views and not yours.

thats fine but, my point was not to convince you of my view the regarding validity of the fine tuning argument, it was to point out that the fine tuning argument is a philosophical point of contention rather than a scientific fact. which I did. easily.

oh, and there is most def none taken.

Instead of playing Battle of the Experts, let's explore this.

Do you think rape is wrong?

"Thinking good and evil is attachment to heaven and hell."

If you say subjectively wrong, what if there was an island on which it was culturally and socially acceptable to commit rape. Everyone is doing it. Is rape still wrong? If not, why not?

from an individual perspective, right and wrong is simply what you hold to be right and wrong. from a cultural perspective, right and wrong is simply what that culture holds to be right and wrong. as an individual, you can have hold a view on right or wrong that differs to that of a given culture.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

what is the fact? that the universe has an origin? even that is debatable; it's been a philosophical point of contention since antiquity. as i said the prevailing scientific view is that the universe has an origin and this is explained by the big bang theory. this, however, is not a fact.

What do you understand a 'scientific fact' to be? Do you think evolution is a scientific fact for example.

I'm with historian of science James Hannam when he says:

I will take for my evidence the facts of science that one can find in textbooks devoted to the subject. A scientific fact is not a philosophical certainty but it is something accepted by the community of mainstream scientists and forms part of what Thomas Kuhn famously called a paradigm.

If you can find any physicist or cosmologist who doesn't think the Big Bang theory is right I will be very, very surprised!

thats fine but, my point was not to convince you of my view the regarding validity of the fine tuning argument, it was to point out that the fine tuning argument is a philosophical point of contention rather than a scientific fact. which I did. easily.

I'm not trying to convince you of the validity of the argument either. I'm just saying that most physicist and cosmologists think that the universe is in some respects 'fine tuned' for life. This 'fact' (again, see above re scientific facts) can be used as a premise of an argument for God. Do you disagree with this premise? If so, do you have reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the majority of cosmologists and physicists?

from an individual perspective, right and wrong is simply what you hold to be right and wrong. from a cultural perspective, right and wrong is simply what that culture holds to be right and wrong. as an individual, you can have hold a view on right or wrong that differs to that of a given culture.

So if you lived in a culture in which rape was considered socially acceptable, then it wouldn't be morally wrong to committ rape?

 

[The rabbi]

I'm not trying to convince you of the validity of the argument either. I'm just saying that most physicist and cosmologists think that the universe is in some respects 'fine tuned' for life. ...Do you disagree with this premise? If so, do you have reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the majority of cosmologists and physicists?

"What was always needed, and nobody had really pointed this out, is that you had to assume that the expansion rate of the early universe was tuned almost exactly right. That is, almost exactly the right expansion rate, so that the universe would be just on the verge of eternal expansion verses eventual collapse.

If one talks about the universe at a time of about one second after the big bang this tuning, this precise fixing of the expansion rate had to be done to an accuracy of about fifteen decimal places.

If the universe just expanded one part in the fifteenth decimal place faster than we thought it had, it would fly apart without galaxies ever having a chance to form.

If the universe at one second after the big bang were expanding with one number less than the fifteenth decimal place than what we thought, then the universe would collapse before galaxies had a chance to form. To make the universe work the universe had to be perched just on this border line."

Alan Guth Prof. Physics, Massachusetts Inst of Technology. Universe Documentary series, 1999

 

[Suspense]

What do you understand a 'scientific fact' to be? Do you think evolution is a scientific fact for example.

I'm with historian of science James Hannam when he says:



If you can find any physicist or cosmologist who doesn't think the Big Bang theory is right I will be very, very surprised!

if that is the definition of fact you are going with, then fair enough. i still don't think your assertion "the universe has an origin" is a scientific fact (as you defined as such) by any means. as i stated, cosmogony is still very much a philosophical point of contention and there are various models/theories that involve an eternally inflating universe with no origin. according to you, these models would be in opposition to "scientific facts", when in actuality they are not because your premise "the universe has an origin" is not a scientific fact.

I'm not trying to convince you of the validity of the argument either. I'm just saying that most physicist and cosmologists think that the universe is in some respects 'fine tuned' for life.

what %?
btw, fine tuning isn't a scientific theory; it is a philosophical worldview, so even if most physicist and cosmologists believe it to be true, that doesn't make it a fact by any means.

This 'fact' (again, see above re scientific facts) can be used as a premise of an argument for God. Do you disagree with this premise? If so, do you have reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the majority of cosmologists and physicists?

as i said, aside from autopoietic notions, i think it's bunk; it assumes too much.

So if you lived in a culture in which rape was considered socially acceptable, then it wouldn't be morally wrong to committ rape?

depends upon who's perspective you are talking from.

 

[JavaBlue]

Alan Guth Prof. Physics, Massachusetts Inst of Technology. Universe Documentary series, 1999

So what's your point? This is old news. I read Rees' book over 20 years ago and I haven't gone around with god on my brain ever since. In fact, as i was reading the book I can't remember even considering the thought of a culturally-constructed superbeing running around twiddling the dials.

 

[JeffDunne]

Do you think evolution is a scientific fact for example.

Evolution is a theory largely supported by verifiable observation.

Darwin's natural selection was a simplistic explanation much like Bohr's model of the atom was or Newton's theory of gravity. There is still much we don't know, but science leads us to more complex explanations that overcome the shortcomings of earlier theories. Verifiable observation is limited at in point in time, so a theory that once appeared verifiable can later appear inadequate. The theory is limited by observation.

This is the fundamental paradox of science that many fail to understand. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. So no theory is ever fact (in the absolute sense).

Theologians like to kid themselves and those that listen to them that this is a failing of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is it's greatest strength.

If you can find any physicist or cosmologist who doesn't think the Big Bang theory is right I will be very, very surprised!

You do understand the meaning of the word 'theory' don't you?

Like with evolution, cosmologists think the theory has merit due to the observable facts that confirm the theory. For instance, cosmic background radiation and the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe.

To suggest however that the theory is 'right', fails to understand science and the concept of verifiable observation.


Pity religion wasn't so self-correcting.

 

[Moti]

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread.

Was Jesus illiterate?

Why would a god want to pass on a message to his creation through such dubious means so open to misinterpretation?

Yeah I know . . . . you need 'faith'.

Two other questions I have :

- what happened to Jesus after the resurrection?
- why would anyone that believes he is what is claimed, diminish his name by calling Christians 'Xians' to save a few seconds?

Interesting thread.

Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit. Having known him for a few years, I reckon he is a brilliant source of information.

I have yet to find anything in the Bible that messes with my view as Jesus as the Son of God and King of Kings.