Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 134 of 134

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #131
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Rep Power

    We have equal or more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for most historical facts from that period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Regardless of your "definitions," if there's evidence that a certain event happened, like the Jesus resurrection, or the healing acts, it's DOGMATIC to pronounce that they could not have happened (despite the evidence) because it's impossible for such events to happen.
    Would it be better to question the veracity of the claim seeing no one bothered to write about it for decades after the alleged guy's death?
    The first written account about the resurrection, which has survived, is from Paul, about 55 AD, 25 years later. Then we have the later accounts from 70-100 AD, which give earlier information about Jesus, including the healing miracles.

    This is a normal time gap for historical events 2000 years ago, or even a shorter time gap than the norm. It is normal to rely on accounts 100 years later than the reported events.

    It's not correct to say "no one bothered to write about it" any earlier than these accounts which survived. For most of the historical events probably there were earlier written accounts than the ones which have survived. It's assumed that there was the earlier Q Document relied on by Luke and Matthew. And there were probably some other short written accounts which perished. Most documents were lost, while the ones which survive are a small fraction of the total documents written.

  2. Top | #132
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Total Posts
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    We have equal or more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for most historical facts from that period.
    Hardly. If you are claiming that tales = evidence than we have a hell of a lot more evidence for alien visitations and alien abductions, Santa Claus, bigfoot, trolls, fairies, etc. than we have for Jesus.

    As for evidence for historical facts from that period, we have anthropological excavations that turn up bones and weapons where battles were recorded to have been, sarcophagi identifying the person inside, ruins and charred wood where a city was recorded to have been under siege, etc.

  3. Top | #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Columbia, SC
    Total Posts
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    We have equal or more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for most historical facts from that period.
    Nonsense. The Biblical stories are works of fiction, a combination of existing mythology that predates the Bible, and stories based on divine revelation/inspiration, as some Christians claim. It is impossible for the authors of the Bible to have gained knowledge of many of the events described in the book, so they must have made it up. That is the only reasonable conclusion.

    You are free to tell us why the Bible stories should be considered credible. How did the author come by these stories, i.e what is their source? What kind of fact checking did the author employ to check the veracity of the stories? How can we fact-check these stories? And so on. But you are not going to do that because you have nothing. You are going to ignore all posts that ask for clarifications and details, and keep repeating your absurd and untrue claim.

  4. Top | #134
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    New York
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    It's both.
    No, it is not.

    All our history record is based on reports of what "someone believed" happened.
    No, it is not. Anything that is, however, is typically deemed "apocryphal." That's why we came up with that word.

    and we have reason to believe it
    No, we don't. But don't let facts stop you.

    Will Durant said it better: "History is mostly guessing. The rest is prejudice."
    Aka, "apocryphal." Which argues against your position in regard to the Christian mythology, not in favor of it.

    Whatever flowery language you use to describe its nonperfection, without the written record telling us what they believed happened we'd have no history.
    This is just more nonsense proving that you know the Christian mythology to be nothing more than unreliable anecdotes at best.

    If I say to you, "I saw Xenu," that is NOT evidence that Xenu actually exists; that is only "evidence" that I saw something that I believed to be Xenu. If 500 people all claim that they saw Xenu, that, likewise is NOT evidence that Xenu actually exists; that is only "evidence" of 500 people who saw something that they believed to be Xenu.
    Therefore Julius Caesar did not exist.
    We have extensive evidence that a Caesar named Julius existed (such as coins, and busts), but most importantly, nobody gives a shit if a guy named Jesus existed. indeed, many millions of guys named Jesus have existed.

    It's not a question of whether or not men have ever walked the earth; it's a question of whether or not certain claims about certain men are verifiable or not, particularly when those claims involve events that could not possibly have happened as described according to such things as the laws of physics or biology, let alone common sense and basic logic.

    And all of that is setting aside the fact that we're talking about extremely ignorant people from thousands of years ago who were all already believers in such things as resurrection and miracles and yet these people still did not believe the bullshit that Paul, in particular, was slinging.

    Many facts in our accepted historical record have zero corroborating evidence.
    That's because they don't involve fantastical claims that contradict known scientific principles or, again, basic common sense. It's no great leap of faith to accept that someone once lived and ruled a nation. Claiming that the same someone who once lived and ruled a nation was a talking snake, however, would certainly require corroborating evidence and not just, "Uh, yeah, man, I mean, I know like five hundred other people who all heard the snake talk and he, like, ruled Egypt for nine hundred, it's a fact."

    You absolutely know this to be true, so the fact that you are desperately trying to spin it should be a wake up call.

    . . . or any number of other explanations account for their experience that don't rest on the notion of the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs.
    And what is the 75-million-year-old document reporting these events?
    All eye-witness accounts of course. It came to Paul L Ron in a Xenu-breathed "vision."

    Who are the scholars who say this was really written 75 million years ago
    The most respected scholars there could ever be. They are so beyond reproach that they are named "Scientologists!"

    If that's what you're claiming about your source, and those facts are available to us in our information sources, then why are you so sure those events didn't really happen?
    Because I'm an intelligent, critical thinking adult.

    And you have more than only one such source for this Xenu event -- right?
    There are thousands of such sources.

    If there are miracle events reported, we need more than only one source for it.
    How many do you need? That's how many exist.

    Now just imagine if the story of Xenu had actually been merely told orally to subsequent generations--and how prone storytelling is to aggrandizement and editing and alteration--for a good forty years before someone claiming to be L. Ron Hubbard wrote it down and then . . .
    I can't continue with this idiocy. You're seriously trying to denigrate a ridiculous cult while being in a ridiulous cult, because yours has "4 (5) sources" (when in fact it only has two; one is Paul and he only argues about a "spiritual" resurrection that he didn't actually witness) and whoever wrote GMark, which actually does not end with Jesus resurrecting from the dead, merely that he "is risen" (i.e., got up).

    It's pathetic and depressing, so we'll skip this stupidity to:

    ETA: Now apply the exact same scrutiny to a story that actually starts without a resurrection. GMark does not say that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. It ends with the women going to the tomb, seeing it already open and a "young man" sitting inside, who merely tells them Jesus "is risen." Not that he was dead and resurrected from the dead.
    The earlier chapter said explicitly that he died.
    No, it does not. It says:

    Mark 15:37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
    Aside from the fact that this is a story being retold some forty to fifty years after any such alleged event--not a verified news account by an eye-witness who was there to record what anyone did or said and breathed--even if it appeared to a bunch of pig-assed ignorant dessert peasants and Roman soldiers that Jesus appeared to be dead, that does not automatically just mean that he was. Even Pilate was inexplicably surprised that Jesus had already died:

    Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
    This is precisely why, in later retellings of Mark's story, the authors embellish it with a Roman soldier stabbing the apparently dead Jesus to make sure that he was, in fact, dead (which, likewise, would not necessarily prove death either).

    Which, if we ARE going to take these accounts as being at all historically accurate, tells us that it was not typical for someone to have died so early on in the process. Indeed, the entire reason why crucifixion was such a horrific punishment was that it usually took several days to kill you.

    And considering that he was, you know, GOD--an omnipotent being--or, at the very least, the "son" of a god, it seems even more suspicious, but let's table that and instead think--oh THINK--exactly how it could be that someone who had supposedly been extensively tortured and flayed and beaten (wearing a crown of thorns no less) and had been losing significant blood the whole time before being nailed to a cross could have appeared to be dead, but actually not be dead.

    If only there were a clinical term for someone who gives nearly every appearance of being dead hanging ten feet up on a cross--and from a combination of severe trauma and blood loss--but is not actually dead. Damnit! What could such a condition be called?

    Well, regardless of such an elusive term, what other clues might we find in the text, if we are to take it at face value and consider it a factual account and not just a bullshit story? Well, let's see if anything leaps out at us:

    So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
    Well, wait, do we have any additional information from these invaluable anecdotal accounts? Perhaps another embellishment? Let's try John's version:

    39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.
    Huh. So, we have surprise from a very knowledgeable source in regard to crucifixion that Jesus had died "already" and we have the fact that Jesus was taken down and essentially bandaged in burial linens, which were themselves soaked in some one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, what we might call "medicine" today.

    Here are the known healing properties of aloe alone:

    Aloe vera is a popular medicinal plant that has been used for thousands of years. It is best known for treating skin injuries, but also has several other beneficial effects on health...Aloe vera gel contains powerful antioxidants, which belong to a large family of substances known as polyphenols. These polyphenols, along with several other compounds in Aloe vera, can help inhibit the growth of certain bacteria that can cause infections in humans
    And there's this more clinical study:

    Wounds and related injuries remain a major cause of death and disability. Wound healing is a complex, highly regulated process that includes cellular, molecular, biochemical, and physiological events that permit living organisms to repair accidental lesions. This process includes 3 overlapping phases: inflammation, proliferation and tissue formation, and tissue remodeling.1 These events are initiated at the time of physical injury and continue throughout the healing process.2

    The proliferative phase involves reepithelialization and granulation tissue formation, which includes fibroplasia and angiogenesis. Reepithelialization refers to the resurfacing of the epidermis by keratinocytes, the main cell type of the skin epidermis, from the wound edges and/or residuals of skin appendages.1,3 Keratinocytes begin migration 12 to 24 hours after injury. The migration and proliferation of these cells are key events for reepithelialization and closure of the wound gap. During granulation tissue formation, fibroblasts migrate, proliferate, and synthesize large amounts of collagen and other extracellular matrix to fill the dermal defect in a process known as fibroplasia.4 During angiogenesis, new blood vessels are formed in the wounded area. Angiogenesis depends on the migration and proliferation of endothelial cells from pre-existing blood vessels in the wound edge.1,5

    The objective of wound management is to heal wounds in the shortest amount of time with minimal pain, discomfort, and scarring.6 Thus, improving treatment for wound healing and tissue repair will improve the quality of life of patients with wounds as well as reduce the overall cost of wound-related health care.
    The results suggest A vera accelerates wound healing by promoting the proliferation and migration of fibroblasts and keratinocytes and by protecting keratinocytes from preservative-induced death.
    But what about myrrh?

    You may be familiar with myrrh from Biblical stories even if you’re not sure what it is...Ancient Egyptians used myrrh and other essential oils to embalm mummies, as the oils not only provide a nice scent but also slow decay. Scientists now know this is because the oils kill bacteria and other microbes...Preliminary animal research suggests that myrrh can directly kill bacteria, as well as stimulate the immune system to make more white blood cells, which also kill bacteria. In test-tube studies, myrrh oil has strong effects against several infectious bacteria, including some drug-resistant ones...Applying diluted myrrh oil on your skin may aid wound healing and fight microbes that can cause infections.
    So, both myrrh and aloe soaked linen bandages would be the perfect solution to healing and killing harmful bacteria from infecting any open wounds that one might receive from, I don't know, a crown of thorns and being flayed and beaten and having nails driven into your feet and the like?

    And then being placed in a fresh, effectively climate-controlled cave with a life-preserving rock closing off the entrance, so that it creates as nearly perfect a sterile, cool chamber as possible in those hot dessert days (combined with a body wrapped in medicinal linen bandages), such that, someone who, say, had slipped into a temporary coma from blood loss and trauma could be taken down long before actual death in order to heal naturally to the point where a few days later he awakens from his coma and some of his buddies watching over him open the tomb and take him down into town thinking it was a miracle and the like, leaving behind the same creepy "young man" in linen that had evidently been hanging around Jesus when Jesus was arrested to tell anyone seeking jesus that a miracle--that really wasn't a miracle--had happened etc., etc., etc., etc.

    IOW, even if we do take your desperate, non-faith based insistence on these accounts as being at all reflecting of actual events, we still find within them strong evidence not of a miracle, but of natural events that were either mistaken for miracles or simply got embellished over time to be turned into miracles that actually were not.

    No "nitpicking" involved. Just being an intelligent adult is all that is necessary to see into the actual accounts we do have how easily such natural events could be mistaken for something else, particularly among people who already believed in such things as gods and resurrection from the dead and the like.

    All of which, no one named "Mark" could have possibly eye-witnessed.
    If he did not witness it, he's like 98% of our ancient historians, who did not eye-witness the events they reported.
    Yeah, which is why we don't know who Homer actually was and certainly don't just accept that gods named Zeus and Athena actually existed, or even if there ever actually was a "Trojan War" or "Trojan Horse." These are NOT things that are just accepted as being true by actual historians.

    But even in those cases, it doesn't really matter because there is nothing fantastical in the notion that two armies went to war against each other, or that one army figured out a clever way to deceive their enemy.

    You are, once again, desperately trying to equate oral history of mundane events with oral history of fantastical claims. That's just straight up nonsense.

    Whoever "Mark" was could not have been relating personal anecdotes; he could only have been relating what others told him about that morning at best.
    Some of Mark is more likely from personal experience/anecdote.
    You have zero basis to make such a claim and ample evidence from within the work that contradicts it. If I claim I am relating events I personally witnessed and then say things like, "And then Jesus wandered out into the desert and had the following conversation with a supernatural being..." I have just tipped to you, the reader, that I am NOT relating events that I personally witnessed unless I actually want out into the dessert night with Jesus and saw and heard everything that I then relate to you.

    Again, all of this idiocy is something you never in a million years would ignore in regard to any other mythology, but because this is your pet favorite, suddenly your brain is shut off. Time to skip the rest of this sophistry as well to:

    Paul had to insist--vehemently in fact--that without a resurrection, then there was no salvation:

    (1 Corinthians 15) 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
    He then goes into an insistence that the resurrection is "spiritual" not physical, which . . .
    No he doesn't.
    Yes, he does. Here, I'll prove it:

    8 Then those also who have died[e] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

    20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.[f] 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end,[g] when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[h] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

    29 Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

    30 And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? 31 I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters,[i] as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised,

    “Let us eat and drink,
    for tomorrow we die.”

    33 Do not be deceived:

    “Bad company ruins good morals.”

    34 Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

    The Resurrection Body
    35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

    42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is[j] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will[k] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

    50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,[l] is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
    Unquestionably states categorically that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kindgom of God."

    Regardless, no one believed him, which is why he had to write the letter in the first damn place. And we apparently have corroboration of this fact in Lucian, who confirmed that in 165 CE "Christians" were still just a bunch of Jews who worshipped a man (not a god) who was killed (not resurrected).

    ETA: I did not see any response to the fact that GMatthew embellished GMark and now, just fifteen or so years later, Jesus granted his disciples the power to raise the dead.

    Did I just miss it in all the nonsense I had to skip over?
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04-24-2019 at 07:44 PM.

Posting Permissions

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