Retired Boards (Archived)
Craig vs Atkins
Posted by: ixthus116
« on: September 28, 2013, 05:08:27 PM »In case there is anyone still reading this thread and confused about mr.t's post:
1.) There were lots of empty tombs. The empty tomb story could have been the result of much oral embellishment... it could have been because the body had decomposed...it could have been a number of things.
The point is threefold. 1 what would you do if you were a Jewish or Roman authority challenged by the uprising of a new Christian movement? You'd seek to undermine the credibility of the movement- and what better way than to produce the corpse of the person they claimed had been bodily resurrected? If the site of the burial was known at the time, which is likely given a) that Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention b) Deuteronomy 21:22-23 meant that the Jewish authorities had to bury him c) the jewish polemic in Matthew 28 presupposes the existence of the empty tomb. Craig gives quite a few more arguments regularly for the authenticity of the empty tomb.
Scholars are pretty much unanimous in the fact that the mathew or mark or Luke or Johndidn't author the gospels...no one knows who did.
This is just a false assertion. There is significant debate over who authorthered the letter to the Hebrews and the pastorals (and even Ephesians and Colossians) and which John out of two Johns wrote John, but the sources of any of the information claimed on this website are well known. To say 'we doubt these people wrote them' and instead assert 'we don't know who did' is a basic violation of how we do history- we assume people are reporting the truth until we have evidence to suggest that they aren't. Either way, their authourship is irrelevant to how reliable they are as sources- in fact, if they weren't written by the disciples (as Luke wasn't) that gives even more objectivity to them!
So, it's reasonable to conclude that the gospels were the result of grains of historical truth, mixed in with much oral embellishment as the story was passed on for years.
This is a standard argument that has been destroyed by any good study of oral societies. Oral societies trained to make sure that histories that were past around were accurate. In any case, the empty tomb lacks any embellishment beyond a plain angel- compare the gospel of peter where a talking cross comes out! If we can identify beliefs about the empty tomb which go back to very early sources, as we can with the per-Markan passion tradition (pre-AD 37) and the 1 Cor 15 chant (Paul's visit to Jer in AD38) then we have good evidence to suggest that had the tomb been full then people would have known about it and falsified those claims.
2.) The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, agreed. Now, this is why it probably changed: The disciples were so convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, that they believed he was the actual messiah. So, they started to look at the Hebrew Bible for passages to support this claim.
I completely agree! This is laughable if you're trying to disagree with the argument- it is precisely this that Craig argues. His actual resurrection was what caused them to change their view of the messiah and then they found support for it in the Hebrew bible- exactly. If you don't think Jesus was resurrected, why were the disciples so convinced he had?
3.) Islam has martyrs....does that make it true? Just because people die for a belief does not validate the belief.
Crucial difference- the disciples knew whether they actually had had appearance of the risen Jesus or not- they were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection was true or not. In constrast, Islamic martyrs were not in a position to know whether Gabriel really appeared to Muhammed or not- they just believed what they were told. If someone dies for a belief they have been told, it's nothing to be suprised about (eg why the Christian martyrs of the 60s and right up to today never feature in debates) but if the sources of the belief die for the belief then we can be very certain they didn't make it up.
4.) The movement started in Jerusalem because the disciples were Jews who occupied Jerusalem. Of course they would preach in Jerusalem!
Here you just missed the point, with respect. The point is if it happened miles away no one would be present to allow for the possibility of claims to be falsified. If it didn't happen and people started claiming in Jerusalem that it did then people would be there who were around at the time and able to say 'you're making it up' and the movement would have never got off the ground. Indeed, had they been making it up for some financial or political motive, they would have been far more likely to flee Jerusalem and preach were no one could disagree with them. The fact that they didn't shows they weren't afraid of witnesses with the opposing view (..because there were none!)
1.) There were lots of empty tombs. The empty tomb story could have been the result of much oral embellishment... it could have been because the body had decomposed...it could have been a number of things.
The point is threefold. 1 what would you do if you were a Jewish or Roman authority challenged by the uprising of a new Christian movement? You'd seek to undermine the credibility of the movement- and what better way than to produce the corpse of the person they claimed had been bodily resurrected? If the site of the burial was known at the time, which is likely given a) that Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention b) Deuteronomy 21:22-23 meant that the Jewish authorities had to bury him c) the jewish polemic in Matthew 28 presupposes the existence of the empty tomb. Craig gives quite a few more arguments regularly for the authenticity of the empty tomb.
Scholars are pretty much unanimous in the fact that the mathew or mark or Luke or Johndidn't author the gospels...no one knows who did.
This is just a false assertion. There is significant debate over who authorthered the letter to the Hebrews and the pastorals (and even Ephesians and Colossians) and which John out of two Johns wrote John, but the sources of any of the information claimed on this website are well known. To say 'we doubt these people wrote them' and instead assert 'we don't know who did' is a basic violation of how we do history- we assume people are reporting the truth until we have evidence to suggest that they aren't. Either way, their authourship is irrelevant to how reliable they are as sources- in fact, if they weren't written by the disciples (as Luke wasn't) that gives even more objectivity to them!
So, it's reasonable to conclude that the gospels were the result of grains of historical truth, mixed in with much oral embellishment as the story was passed on for years.
This is a standard argument that has been destroyed by any good study of oral societies. Oral societies trained to make sure that histories that were past around were accurate. In any case, the empty tomb lacks any embellishment beyond a plain angel- compare the gospel of peter where a talking cross comes out! If we can identify beliefs about the empty tomb which go back to very early sources, as we can with the per-Markan passion tradition (pre-AD 37) and the 1 Cor 15 chant (Paul's visit to Jer in AD38) then we have good evidence to suggest that had the tomb been full then people would have known about it and falsified those claims.
2.) The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, agreed. Now, this is why it probably changed: The disciples were so convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, that they believed he was the actual messiah. So, they started to look at the Hebrew Bible for passages to support this claim.
I completely agree! This is laughable if you're trying to disagree with the argument- it is precisely this that Craig argues. His actual resurrection was what caused them to change their view of the messiah and then they found support for it in the Hebrew bible- exactly. If you don't think Jesus was resurrected, why were the disciples so convinced he had?
3.) Islam has martyrs....does that make it true? Just because people die for a belief does not validate the belief.
Crucial difference- the disciples knew whether they actually had had appearance of the risen Jesus or not- they were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection was true or not. In constrast, Islamic martyrs were not in a position to know whether Gabriel really appeared to Muhammed or not- they just believed what they were told. If someone dies for a belief they have been told, it's nothing to be suprised about (eg why the Christian martyrs of the 60s and right up to today never feature in debates) but if the sources of the belief die for the belief then we can be very certain they didn't make it up.
4.) The movement started in Jerusalem because the disciples were Jews who occupied Jerusalem. Of course they would preach in Jerusalem!
Here you just missed the point, with respect. The point is if it happened miles away no one would be present to allow for the possibility of claims to be falsified. If it didn't happen and people started claiming in Jerusalem that it did then people would be there who were around at the time and able to say 'you're making it up' and the movement would have never got off the ground. Indeed, had they been making it up for some financial or political motive, they would have been far more likely to flee Jerusalem and preach were no one could disagree with them. The fact that they didn't shows they weren't afraid of witnesses with the opposing view (..because there were none!)
Posted by: jules
« on: April 22, 2013, 05:20:22 PM »wonderful debate.
Posted by: mr.t
« on: November 25, 2012, 12:54:50 PM »I can explain these "facts":
"And even if you were to skip this particular fact, there is simply no explanation aside from the resurrection that can sufficiently explain the following
1) Empty tomb
2) Radical change of belief of former Davidic Messiah-ship follower of Jesus and Jewish skeptics
3) The martyrdom of nearly all the apostles (only John died of old age) and early disciples never wavered in their conviction despite them knowing for a fact whether Jesus either lived again or truly died. (c.f. Eusebius)
4) The starting of the Church movement in Jerusalem - the precise place Jesus was crucified, within 5 years of his death."
1.) There were lots of empty tombs. The empty tomb story could have been the result of much oral embellishment. Scholars are pretty much unanimous in the fact that the mathew or mark or Luke or Johndidn't author the gospels...no one knows who did. So, it's reasonable to conclude that the gospels were the result of grains of historical truth, mixed in with much oral embellishment as the story was passed on for years. Could there have been an empty tomb? Sure. But it could have been because the body had decomposed...it could have been a number of things.
2.) The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, agreed. Now, this is why it probably changed: The disciples were so convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, that they believed he was the actual messiah. So, they started to look at the Hebrew Bible for passages to support this claim.
3.) Islam has martyrs....does that make it true? Just because people die for a belief does not validate the belief.
4.) The movement started in Jerusalem because the disciples were Jews who occupied Jerusalem. Of course they would preach in Jerusalem!
"And even if you were to skip this particular fact, there is simply no explanation aside from the resurrection that can sufficiently explain the following
1) Empty tomb
2) Radical change of belief of former Davidic Messiah-ship follower of Jesus and Jewish skeptics
3) The martyrdom of nearly all the apostles (only John died of old age) and early disciples never wavered in their conviction despite them knowing for a fact whether Jesus either lived again or truly died. (c.f. Eusebius)
4) The starting of the Church movement in Jerusalem - the precise place Jesus was crucified, within 5 years of his death."
1.) There were lots of empty tombs. The empty tomb story could have been the result of much oral embellishment. Scholars are pretty much unanimous in the fact that the mathew or mark or Luke or Johndidn't author the gospels...no one knows who did. So, it's reasonable to conclude that the gospels were the result of grains of historical truth, mixed in with much oral embellishment as the story was passed on for years. Could there have been an empty tomb? Sure. But it could have been because the body had decomposed...it could have been a number of things.
2.) The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, agreed. Now, this is why it probably changed: The disciples were so convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, that they believed he was the actual messiah. So, they started to look at the Hebrew Bible for passages to support this claim.
3.) Islam has martyrs....does that make it true? Just because people die for a belief does not validate the belief.
4.) The movement started in Jerusalem because the disciples were Jews who occupied Jerusalem. Of course they would preach in Jerusalem!
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 07:03:01 PM »Well, if I'm being redundant, you're being circular. You're saying that the only being who could have created the universe is God because any being that created the universe would be considered God.
Well... Where in that is there room for the possibility that the universe was created, but not by God?
Why should we consider that possibility?
If any being has the capability to create the universe out of nothing, that being, by default, is a supernatural ("beyond nature") being which is not constrained by time, space and matter, by default is a a maximally great being and is therefore God.
You don't really have a lot of room to maneuver, not less you want to entertain the notion of the universe creating itself into existence.
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:56:06 PM »Well, if I'm being redundant, you're being circular. You're saying that the only being who could have created the universe is God because any being that created the universe would be considered God.
Well... Where in that is there room for the possibility that the universe was created, but not by God?
Well... Where in that is there room for the possibility that the universe was created, but not by God?
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:50:48 PM »ArgonGruber wrote:Quote from: DamokstaThen those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.
What if the universe was caused by extra-universe entities that do not share the maximal properties of a theistic god? What if the aliens are not maximally great, powerful, omniscience, and benevolent, yet still created the universe?
Redundant question: whichever being that created the universe must be all-powerful since it created the universe out of nothing, and omniscient since it "preset" the fine-tuning constants necessary for the Big Bang to support life e.g. gravitational constant, Hubble constant, cosmological constant etc to do exactly that and personal - since it chose to create the universe.
And by nature, since the creator must be greater than the creation, omnipresence follows plus negative description base on what the universe is follows.
The only property that a conceptual analysis of the KCA cannot reveal is the omnibenevolence, but a theistic God does not necessary has to be omnibenevolence e.g. Allah and certain Judaistic interpretation on God.
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:33:00 PM »Damoksta wrote:
Then those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.
What if the universe was caused by extra-universe entities that do not share the maximal properties of a theistic god? What if the aliens are not maximally great, powerful, omniscience, and benevolent, yet still created the universe?
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:29:47 PM »ArgonGruber wrote: Ah, yes! We do not have evidence that the universe did ever not-exist.
This line of thinking is astoundingly weak. IF something has not evidence to support it, then the negation is automatically considered superior.
As I said previously, the BVG theorem is the evidence that the universe did ever not-exist.
Also, your 3a and 3b are not part of the actual KCA. The cause of the universe is just something outside of the universe. Maybe aliens did it. Maybe 7 did it. We're talking about pre-universe causality, after all.
Then those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:27:57 AM »Ah, yes! We do not have evidence that the universe did ever not-exist.
Also, your 3a and 3b are not part of the actual KCA. The cause of the universe is just something outside of the universe. Maybe aliens did it. Maybe 7 did it. We're talking about pre-universe causality, after all.
Also, your 3a and 3b are not part of the actual KCA. The cause of the universe is just something outside of the universe. Maybe aliens did it. Maybe 7 did it. We're talking about pre-universe causality, after all.
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 06:07:01 AM »ArgonGruber wrote: Um, okay. That's cool. What turns on the universe and stuff? Like, what point are you making again?
Then the KCA, without an adequate defeater, stands.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
3. a. This cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all-powerful, intelligent, and personal
3. b. This cause is God.
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 05:53:37 AM »Um, okay. That's cool. What turns on the universe and stuff? Like, what point are you making again?
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 05:08:10 AM »ArgonGruber wrote: There are some pretty stable alternatives to a finite universe. Well, at least I've seen some pretty acceptable alternatives to a finite universe. Cyclical Universes and stuff.
Are there evidence-based though? Just because there are postulates does not make it true, or even a plausible alternative. If there are, feel free to cite it - but I think you are going to be very hard-pressed.
Eternal cyclic universe, asymptotic space-time, internal contraction LQG etc. have been propose in attempts to justify an eternal universe, but all have serious challenges conforming to known cosmology and thermodynamic rules.
In other words, to quote Vilenkin, ALL scientific evidence points to a universe with a beginning. Just about the only pseudo-evidence for an eternal universe is Penrose + Gurzadyan recent work, but even that is hotly disputed and looks likely to be bad analytical + statistical technique.
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 02:53:05 AM »There are some pretty stable alternatives to a finite universe. Well, at least I've seen some pretty acceptable alternatives to a finite universe. Cyclical Universes and stuff.
Ahhh... The absence of good defeaters?
Nope. I am open to the possibility that God could exist. That is, I am open to the possibility that there might exist a God. If you think I am not open to the existence of a God, then you are wrong about what I believe.
Ahhh... The absence of good defeaters?
Nope. I am open to the possibility that God could exist. That is, I am open to the possibility that there might exist a God. If you think I am not open to the existence of a God, then you are wrong about what I believe.
Posted by: Damoksta
« on: August 19, 2012, 02:30:29 AM »ArgonGruber wrote: 1. Kalam Argument.
Actually, Damoksta, all we can prove is that the Big Bang happened. We cannot prove that the universe did or did not exist prior to the Big Bang. All we know is that it happened.
4 words: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a space-time boundary.”
And because the theorem holds regardless of physical description, what happens before Planck time is irrelevant for the KCA: the universe still must have had an absolute beginning - either from a metastable stage or ex nihilo.
Now, is there objections to BVG? Yes, but the few that are actually viable objections all point to a beginning from a metastable stage or ex-nihilo models (e.g. semi-classical models)
2. Moral Objectivity
Moral Objectivity does not prove the existence of God. Moral Objectivity could be true in God's absence. God's presence could be true in the absence of Moral Objectivity.
3. Resurrection Argument
This argument is inductive, and Dr. Craig admits it.
The above post have already fisked through those points- and it appears that you have run out of substance to object.
In the absence of good defeaters, what's stopping you from even considering that there might exists a God?
Posted by: ArgonGruber
« on: August 19, 2012, 12:14:29 AM »1. Kalam Argument.
Actually, Damoksta, all we can prove is that the Big Bang happened. We cannot prove that the universe did or did not exist prior to the Big Bang. All we know is that it happened.
2. Moral Objectivity
Moral Objectivity does not prove the existence of God. Moral Objectivity could be true in God's absence. God's presence could be true in the absence of Moral Objectivity.
3. Resurrection Argument
This argument is inductive, and Dr. Craig admits it.
Actually, Damoksta, all we can prove is that the Big Bang happened. We cannot prove that the universe did or did not exist prior to the Big Bang. All we know is that it happened.
2. Moral Objectivity
Moral Objectivity does not prove the existence of God. Moral Objectivity could be true in God's absence. God's presence could be true in the absence of Moral Objectivity.
3. Resurrection Argument
This argument is inductive, and Dr. Craig admits it.