Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Science Proves Non-Christians are Unsaved

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    400
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    I don't want to name any single particular work, but many books of haven written on the probability a person could have fulfilled them all. This is a great example of searching God out with all your heart and soul that if this is a sticking point for you then I trust you will find those books soon to that point how they do their calculations and how many prophecies they each include.

    I am not sure what you are asking about controls. Perhaps give an example.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithful View Post
    I don't want to name any single particular work, but many books of haven written on the probability a person could have fulfilled them all.
    A scientific claim is, by definition, a claim that others do not have to simply take your word for because it can be tested. Since you don't seem to be able to support your claim that "All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible. . ." with anything other than so say that books have been written on the subject, I think it's fair to assert that this claim is not scientific at all until such time as you show how these probabilities were calculated and what variables were taken into account.

    Admittedly, this is a rigorous task. . .but then science is a rigorous process.

    I am not sure what you are asking about controls. Perhaps give an example.
    No problem. In a scientific experiment control groups are used to ensure that the variable you are testing for is actually what you are measuring. For example, if I want to do an experiment to see if a certain fertilizer increases plant growth I would grow plants both with fertilizer (experimental group) and without the fertilizer (control group) but keep everything else the same. The goal in using control groups is to ensure that there are as few variables as possible. I'm wondering how studies on the probability of fulfilled prophecies control for the variable of authors embellishing stories to make them fit OT verses. Thanks.

    Moving on to the next claim in the OP,

    . . .and He resurrected Himself which skeptics don’t know how to explain away given the data. . .
    What is the scientific basis of this claim? There are certainly other reasons why people choose to die for ideas other than those ideas being valid, and the gospels have not been established as eye-witness testimony in anything other than church tradition which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. Nor are "group hallucinations" the only alternative here: the gospels seem to have been written decades after the events they record during a period in history during which the flow of information was arduously slow. We've observed other cults/beliefs spring up around highly embellished stories of events within this time frame such as, for example, Islam or Mormonism or even the cargo cults of the South Pacific. How can we test this hypothesis while taking into account these possible variables?





    Lurker

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    400
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
    A scientific claim is, by definition, a claim that others do not have to simply take your word for because it can be tested. Since you don't seem to be able to support your claim that "All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible. . ." with anything other than so say that books have been written on the subject, I think it's fair to assert that this claim is not scientific at all until such time as you show how these probabilities were calculated and what variables were taken into account.

    Admittedly, this is a rigorous task. . .but then science is a rigorous process.
    You don't need to read other books. Just observe the prophecies in the Bible that there are so many the probabilities are truly astronomical, impossible to be merely coincident.

    No problem. In a scientific experiment control groups are used to ensure that the variable you are testing for is actually what you are measuring. For example, if I want to do an experiment to see if a certain fertilizer increases plant growth I would grow plants both with fertilizer (experimental group) and without the fertilizer (control group) but keep everything else the same. The goal in using control groups is to ensure that there are as few variables as possible. I'm wondering how studies on the probability of fulfilled prophecies control for the variable of authors embellishing stories to make them fit OT verses. Thanks.

    Moving on to the next claim in the OP,
    You would need to give an example of a control group with respect to human history. The proof the Bible gives is for you to observe the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Scientifically there is no naturalistic explanation, therefore it must be supernaturally of God.

    What is the scientific basis of this claim? There are certainly other reasons why people choose to die for ideas other than those ideas being valid, and the gospels have not been established as eye-witness testimony in anything other than church tradition which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. Nor are "group hallucinations" the only alternative here: the gospels seem to have been written decades after the events they record during a period in history during which the flow of information was arduously slow. We've observed other cults/beliefs spring up around highly embellished stories of events within this time frame such as, for example, Islam or Mormonism or even the cargo cults of the South Pacific. How can we test this hypothesis while taking into account these possible variables?
    The scientific method holds that a naturalistic explanation would need to account for the eyewitness testimony established well testified in the Scriptures. Not only are group hallucinations impossible but all known theories to date fall by the way side. You seem to be focused on the gospels themselves, but the minimal facts approach doesn't go that route. It says most skeptical scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, and of all Paul's writings these 3 chapters are the earliest and most dependable. In these 3 chapters Paul recounts the gospel message, the eyewitness testimonies and that he spent 15 days with Peter and with John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus who imparted their eyewitness testimony to Paul. As for the gospels there is nothing to suggest they weren't written a few years after Jesus died. And they are most dependable as no text in ancient history was so closely written to their events as was the New Testament even if we were to be generous and use your late dating.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithful View Post
    You don't need to read other books. Just observe the prophecies in the Bible that there are so many the probabilities are truly astronomical, impossible to be merely coincident.
    I have read the prophecies in the bible. I have never seen any calculations done on their probability, nor do I know of how one could accurately calculate such a thing. It is your claim that Christianity is scientifically proven based on, among other things, that there are more fulfilled prophecies in the bible than humanly possible. For this claim to be factual requires evidence. You don't seem to know how, where, or by whom these probabilities were calculated. That's a bit of a problem don't you think?

    You would need to give an example of a control group with respect to human history.
    If I were making the claim that the probability of fulfilled prophecies in human history were established as humanly impossible in regards to a specific religion then yes. Unfortunately, I am not making that claim. . .you are.

    The proof the Bible gives is for you to observe the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Scientifically there is no naturalistic explanation, therefore it must be supernaturally of God.
    Um. . .no actually. For one thing I've already provided an explanation, one that we've actually observed happening which does not require us to posit supernatural beings - that humans embellish stories and/or fabrications over time. I even provided several examples illustrating this fact. In addition, even if there were no known natural explanation it would not follow that your particular supernatural one was correct. Science works by the amassing of evidence supporting a particular theory, not by simply eliminating alternatives.

    You seem to be focused on the gospels themselves, but the minimal facts approach doesn't go that route. It says most skeptical scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, and off all Paul's writings these 3 chapters are the earliest and most dependable. In these 3 chapters Paul recounts the gospel message, the eyewitness testimonies and that he spent 15 days with Peter and with John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus who imparted their eyewitness testimony to Paul.
    And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard. . .how? Even at best these are second hand accounts written years after the events.

    As for the gospels there is nothing to suggest they weren't written a few years after Jesus died.
    Actually there's plenty to suggest that. Mark is usually regarded as the earliest gospel, and it is generally seen as having been written between 65 and 80 AD by scholars based on both external and internal evidence. As an aside, Mark is an anonymous gospel with only tradition supporting the notion of its author as Mark. That being said, even if we take this tradition at face value this is still a second hand account as Mark the Evangelist was not an apostle and had never known Christ, but instead was Peter's interpreter who simply wrote down what he could remember of his sermons according to Papias of Hierapolis. Of course. . .we only know of these claims of Papias through second hand accounts of his writings so the claim that there is "nothing" to suggest they weren't written within a few years seems more than a little tenuous.




    Lurker

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    400
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
    I have read the prophecies in the bible. I have never seen any calculations done on their probability, nor do I know of how one could accurately calculate such a thing. It is your claim that Christianity is scientifically proven based on, among other things, that there are more fulfilled prophecies in the bible than humanly possible. For this claim to be factual requires evidence. You don't seem to know how, where, or by whom these probabilities were calculated. That's a bit of a problem don't you think?
    Like I said one way you can search God out with all your heart and soul so you shall surely find Him is to find those books of probability calculations for the fulfilment of so many prophecies as it seems to be an issue for you. That you don't search this information out yourself yet make a bone of contention shows you are not searching God out with all your heart and soul and that is why you don't find Him. God blinds you. I am not your librarian but I will say that you don't even need to do that because you should be able to see all those probabilities are quite spectacular in and of themselves without having to go to some formal and rigorous analysis. It looks to me like your petty self is a problem for you.

    If I were making the claim that the probability of fulfilled prophecies in human history were established as humanly impossible in regards to a specific religion then yes. Unfortunately, I am not making that claim. . .you are.
    You're not understanding. You would need to give an example of a control group for prophecies so it can be tested. If you can't think of one then obviously you are barking up the wrong tree. Give an example.

    Um. . .no actually. For one thing I've already provided an explanation, one that we've actually observed happening which does not require us to posit supernatural beings - that humans embellish stories and/or fabrications over time. I even provided several examples illustrating this fact. In addition, even if there were no known natural explanation it would not follow that your particular supernatural one was correct. Science works by the amassing of evidence supporting a particular theory, not by simply eliminating alternatives.
    I've responded to what you said before, so respond to my response showing the error of your thinking. You are appealing to the Legend Theory, but there is no grounds for that since the first churches were set up by the first Apostles on the resurrection claim and eyewitness testimony. So there was not enough time to develop for your theory to have credence. There is nothing to embellish since we are already starting with the Apostles and their eyewitness testimony and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. You have given no examples of people willingly dying for a lie, nor have you been able to handle the first churches set up on their eyewitness testimony. Science works by both eliminating unviable options and evidence for such as the Bible gives throughout about the gospel message. The Bible is the evidence you long for that you are reluctant to read.

    And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard. . .how? Even at best these are second hand accounts written years after the events.
    Since you agree Paul didn't embellish, there is no problem. These are Paul's own writings, not second hand accounts. The gospels themselves were written within a couple years after Jesus died and partly while He was still alive. There is no evidence to the contrary. Paul testified the gospel message he received from the first Apostles such as John, Peter and James having spent considerable time with them.

    Actually there's plenty to suggest that. Mark is usually regarded as the earliest gospel, and it is generally seen as having been written between 65 and 80 AD by scholars based on both external and internal evidence. As an aside, Mark is an anonymous gospel with only tradition supporting the notion of its author as Mark. That being said, even if we take this tradition at face value this is still a second hand account as Mark the Evangelist was not an apostle and had never known Christ, but instead was Peter's interpreter who simply wrote down what he could remember of his sermons according to Papias of Hierapolis. Of course. . .we only know of these claims of Papias through second hand accounts of his writings so the claim that there is "nothing" to suggest they weren't written within a few years seems more than a little tenuous.
    There is nothing you suggested that Mark was written as late as you claim. Therefore we can consider it written within a couple years after Jesus died, and I gave a really good reason to believe that which you didn't challenge. Mark is not anonymous but traditionally written by Mark, and Mark even alludes to himself as the man running naked in the street when Jesus was captured. Why does Mark have to be an Apostle? Paul talks about him lots and they even had a disagreement. This is powerful evidence of embarrassment lending to authenticity. You admit Mark worked with Peter too. Mark likely was also one of the 500 who saw Jesus after resurrected. Surely Mark living at the time of Peter would have heard about Jesus and followed him. However many years after Jesus died the gospels were written, they were written far sooner to their events than anything else in antiquity holding the highest of standards. So if you are going to throw out the gospels on that basis, you will have to remove all human history prior to Jesus. I don't know any scholars that obnoxious. You should like how the gospels don't talk about their writers since the focus is the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

    Praise the Lord!

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithful View Post
    That you don't search this information out yourself yet make a bone of contention shows you are not searching God out with all your heart and soul and that is why you don't find Him. God blinds you. I am not your librarian but I will say that you don't even need to do that because you should be able to see all those probabilities are quite spectacular in and of themselves without having to go to some formal and rigorous analysis. It looks to me like your petty self is a problem for you.
    I don't mean to be rude, but that this is not even remotely how empiricism works. You’ve made the claim, by asserting that your proofs are “scientific”, that these are empirically supported statements. You may not, therefore, excuse yourself from providing evidence for your own claims if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't provide evidence to support your claims then you may want to start thinking about redefining this as a “personal opinion based on incredulity” rather than as a “scientific fact” at this point.

    You're not understanding. You would need to give an example of a control group for prophecies so it can be tested. If you can't think of one then obviously you are barking up the wrong tree. Give an example.
    I have no idea how you could control for embellishments by the authors to fit the OT verses. That is kind of the point. There doesn’t seem to be any way you could possibly establish this empirically since these are the only sources you’ve presented, ergo this obviously is not a scientific claim.

    You are appealing to the Legend Theory, but there is no grounds for that since the first churches were set up by the first Apostles on the resurrection claim and eyewitness testimony. So there was not enough time to develop for your theory to have credence. There is nothing to embellish since we are already starting with the Apostles and their eyewitness testimony and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.
    Um. . .we have a very poor understanding of what the first churches actually taught, and what we do have indicates that they believed quite a few stories about Christ that you no longer do. There were dozens, possibly hundreds, of different accounts of Christ’s life proliferated during this time period, many of which we still have records of in the gnostic gospels. To claim that there is no grounds to say that embellished stories about the life of Christ could have cropped up in the decades following his death is therefore demonstrably wrong (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
    That seems like awfully firm ground to me.

    Since you agree Paul didn't embellish
    That’s not what I said.

    These are Paul's own writings, not second hand accounts
    Paul’s accounts of the life of Christ are second hand by virtue of the fact that he was present for precisely none of it. That’s what “second hand” means.

    I gave a really good reason to believe that which you didn't challenge.
    Really? I thought I did by pointing out that your theory required a series of exceedingly charitable assumptions that appeared quite unwarranted. . .but I’ll double check just to make sure.

    Mark is not anonymous but traditionally written by Mark
    It is written anonymously, in that nothing in the text says that it was written by Mark. Christians simply assume that it is because later church figures started claiming it was.

    Why does Mark have to be an Apostle? Paul talks about him lots and they even had a disagreement. This is powerful evidence of embarrassment lending to authenticity. You admit Mark worked with Peter too. Mark likely was also one of the 500 who saw Jesus after resurrected. Surely Mark living at the time of Peter would have heard about Jesus and followed him.
    So what if Paul talked about him? Paul never met Jesus, why then would someone who knew Paul be assumed to have done so? We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Mark was one of the supposed 500, which is yet another second-hand claim made by someone who admits he wasn’t there. Why are you obfuscating on this point? Any way you slice it Mark, the earliest gospel, is not a first hand account of Christ’s life.

    However many years after Jesus died the gospels were written, they were written far sooner to their events than anything else in antiquity holding the highest of standards.
    I wasn’t aware that we knew anything about the standards used by the gospel authors. Can you explain a bit more about what those standards were and where you came by this information? Thanks.

    So if you are going to throw out the gospels on that basis, you will have to remove all human history prior to Jesus. I don't know any scholars that obnoxious.
    Are you sure? I’m sure many scholars would be hesitant to give absolute credence to texts of questionable authorship and questionable dates which record events without any outside corroboration. Note that what’s in contention isn’t that there existed a man during this time called the Christ who was a radical religious teacher and was later killed - what’s contended is that he performed actual miracles and rose from the dead. To be completely honest, I don’t know of any scholars that would take modern, first-hand accounts of someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead at face value without strong corroborating evidence. . .and I don’t think you would either.

    As always, thanks for the replies.




    Lurker

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    400
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
    I don't mean to be rude, but that this is not even remotely how empiricism works. You’ve made the claim, by asserting that your proofs are “scientific”, that these are empirically supported statements. You may not, therefore, excuse yourself from providing evidence for your own claims if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't provide evidence to support your claims then you may want to start thinking about redefining this as a “personal opinion based on incredulity” rather than as a “scientific fact” at this point.

    You don't need to do a detailed analysis of the prophecies in the Bible. Just a cursory view is enough to show it is impossible for any man to have fulfilled these prophecies. The human population was a mere fraction of what would be needed. If you want to do a deeper study that is fine but it is not necessary. Just a few prophecies together is humanly impossible let alone over 300 of them. This is so anyone reading the Bible can easily discern these prophecies are humanly impossible and you would not need to be a learned scholar. God's grace is ample for all.

    I have no idea how you could control for embellishments by the authors to fit the OT verses. That is kind of the point. There doesn’t seem to be any way you could possibly establish this empirically since these are the only sources you’ve presented, ergo this obviously is not a scientific claim.
    You know the authors did not embellish because the Apostles really died for their eyewitness testimony. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. Scientifically, it is impossible for people to willingly die for what they know is a lie since it is has never happened before that we know of. Provide a control group of people willingly dying for what they know is a lie.

    Um. . .we have a very poor understanding of what the first churches actually taught, and what we do have indicates that they believed quite a few stories about Christ that you no longer do. There were dozens, possibly hundreds, of different accounts of Christ’s life proliferated during this time period, many of which we still have records of in the gnostic gospels. To claim that there is no grounds to say that embellished stories about the life of Christ could have cropped up in the decades following his death is therefore demonstrably wrong (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
    That seems like awfully firm ground to me.
    We have a very clear understanding of what the first churches taught as detailed in Acts and Paul's epistles, James and John's epistles, etc. These "other books" you go after are several centuries later so they are of no consideration. Any historian knows the earliest sources hold the most value. Books written centuries after the fact hardly compare to the earliest sources by the Apostles in the NT. There is simply no ground for embellishment by the writers of the NT. It's impossible to embellish the resurrection.

    That’s not what I said.
    You said, "
    And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard." I agree.

    Paul’s accounts of the life of Christ are second hand by virtue of the fact that he was present for precisely none of it. That’s what “second hand” means.

    Paul was present for everything he wrote about. You did not show otherwise. He listed his travels, his contacts, etc. No second hand.

    Really? I thought I did by pointing out that your theory required a series of exceedingly charitable assumptions that appeared quite unwarranted. . .but I’ll double check just to make sure.
    I am glad you couldn't find any assumptions on my part. Praise the Lord!

    It is written anonymously, in that nothing in the text says that it was written by Mark. Christians simply assume that it is because later church figures started claiming it was.
    Mark is not written anonymously as he eludes to himself running in the streets naked when Jesus was captured. John eludes to himself as well at the cross in his book. The entire text of Mark is very basic and simple quite like Mark was, for as you recall Paul and Mark had a falling out because of Mark's fickle nature. Later they reconciled. The author of Mark has always been thought to be Mark who worked closely with Peter. Nobody else qualifies to be the author other than Mark for it must be someone before the martyrdom of the saints and who was a simpleton and a close worker with the original Apostles. When you review all the accounts of Mark, you realize nobody else fits the profile and could produce such a close account in agreement with the other 3 gospels of Matthew, Luke, John.

    So what if Paul talked about him? Paul never met Jesus, why then would someone who knew Paul be assumed to have done so? We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Mark was one of the supposed 500, which is yet another second-hand claim made by someone who admits he wasn’t there. Why are you obfuscating on this point? Any way you slice it Mark, the earliest gospel, is not a first hand account of Christ’s life.
    Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. It couldn't have been a hallucination since others with him experienced the same light, fell to the ground and heard Jesus' voice, but Paul could make out the person of Jesus and spoke personally with Him. Paul new Peter, James and John personally who imparted to him that they were with Jesus and saw Jesus alive from the dead. Mark worked closely with Peter and went on some travels with Paul. It's all interconnected. Since Mark was alive during Jesus' 3 year ministry, he would very likely have been one in the crowd of people who heard Jesus speak many times. Therefore, Mark's account is quite legitimate, a first hand account while Jesus was alive and while Jesus was resurrected.

    I wasn’t aware that we knew anything about the standards used by the gospel authors. Can you explain a bit more about what those standards were and where you came by this information? Thanks.
    When you compare the accounts of all ancient documents in antiquity, the earliest sources we have for the NT are far closer to their events than anything else in antiquity. So if you are going to throw out the NT then you have to throw out all of history. But I don't know any scholar that belligerent and obnoxious so you're on your own obstinate path.

    Are you sure? I’m sure many scholars would be hesitant to give absolute credence to texts of questionable authorship and questionable dates which record events without any outside corroboration. Note that what’s in contention isn’t that there existed a man during this time called the Christ who was a radical religious teacher and was later killed - what’s contended is that he performed actual miracles and rose from the dead. To be completely honest, I don’t know of any scholars that would take modern, first-hand accounts of someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead at face value without strong corroborating evidence. . .and I don’t think you would either.
    We know when the earliest still preserved papyri are dated. There is one in the late first century and about 15 from the second century. So this is within a century after Jesus died and even earlier for the other writings and travels of Paul and John's testimony. Nothing in antiquity is that well preserved. So all I am saying is don't harbor a doublestandard against the NT which holds a far higher standard than anything in antiquity. You can contend Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but you would need a naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings by the Apostles. Otherwise, you are just pontificating on a pedestal. The burden is on you to show otherwise, since the NT in agreement with the OT has provided the proof which you really can't ask more of. Since this is so well corroborated, better than anything in antiquity, why harbor a doublestandard? Is it not because you are antichrist?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Science Proves an Eternity of the Past is Impossible
    By Churchwork in forum Minimal Facts Approach
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2014, 09:28 PM
  2. Science and Christianity
    By Imperfect_Imperfection in forum Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 04:57 PM
  3. Unsaved Excuses
    By Finestwheat in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 10:52 PM
  4. Magic proves the supernatural?
    By aceofspades in forum Occult
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 12:07 PM
  5. Trying to Keep the Law Proves One Can Chose the Cross
    By Churchwork in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 10:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •