Kevin:

hrm... the oily? Anyway, didn't Josephus mention Jesus?

No, he didn't.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Stahrwe:

You neglect a few points.

1) Nothing in the account indicates that the crowd knew what was going on.&
2) There was no nightly news in that era.

You neglect the fact that these claims have no evidence supporting them. They can be dismissed. This is not a case of 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence', since the implication that these events took place is that the laws of nature must be changed to accommodate them. Which means, the evidence against these claims are the findings of modern science, namely that the laws of nature do not allow for such magical events to happen.

Interbane wrote:Kevin:

hrm... the oily? Anyway, didn't Josephus mention Jesus?

No, he didn't.

There is actually a good deal of deate about this. Even the website you furnish as proof of "No" says this: In addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage, many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium.

You neglect the fact that these claims have no evidence supporting them. They can be dismissed. This is not a case of 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence', since the implication that these events took place is that the laws of nature must be changed to accommodate them. Which means, the evidence against these claims are the findings of modern science, namely that the laws of nature do not allow for such magical events to happen.

It seems to me you're saying that God cannot exist since the laws of nature would have to be changed in order to accomodate for his presence. And yet, everyone mostly could agree that this is the essense of the God-concept. So I think you're saying something everyone already knows, and agrees on, and calling it proof against the existence of God.

So I think you're saying something everyone already knows, and agrees on, and calling it proof against the existence of God.

I'm very much against the word "proof". That our universe conforms to certain laws is compelling evidence against a personal god. However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place. They are two different definitions of "god".

Again, which do you think is more likely; that nature had veered off it's course, or that men fabricated the tale? We know that men certainly fabricate tales, and we also know that the laws of nature have remained constant across all contemporary scientific documentation.

Interbane wrote:

So I think you're saying something everyone already knows, and agrees on, and calling it proof against the existence of God.

I'm very much against the word "proof". That our universe conforms to certain laws is compelling evidence against a personal god. However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place. They are two different definitions of "god".

When I started the discussion, "Necessary Being" my main interest was in having an explanation, from a BT member not Dawkins, or Hitchins, et al, as to why a universe which conforms to certain laws leads to the conclusion that their is no God. Spell God with a little g if you want. Forget the Bible if you want. Why jump to the conclusion that there is not deity just because you think you can identify laws of nature?

Robert Tulip" wrote:Again, which do you think is more likely; that nature had veered off it's course, or that men fabricated the tale? We know that men certainly fabricate tales, and we also know that the laws of nature have remained constant across all contemporary scientific documentation.

Really? There is a law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to move from a state of order to one of disorder yet evolution would seem to indicate the opposite happens.

Really? There is a law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to move from a state of order to one of disorder yet evolution would seem to indicate the opposite happens.

The law of Thermodynamics doesn't change, only the phenomena it references changes. Evolution is a theory, not a law. The difference between a theory and a law is not one of "importance" or "certainty", but rather one of type.

Why jump to the conclusion that there is not deity just because you think you can identify laws of nature?

I didn't say that. What I said was: "However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place."

Interbane wrote:Your signature Stahrwe:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as the appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven. Carl Sagan criticized this practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Did you change your beliefs? This is actually a rational signature! Unless you're unable to understand how it supports evolution yet does not support any religion.

Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability?

Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability?

Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

No, I'm not saying nor implying those things. I will answer them, but I don't see how it has any bearing on your signature.

Logical principles are limited in where they apply. For example, quantum superposition.

The standards of evidence are the same for science and religion.

He uses this one He uses this passage in Evangelical Demonstration Book (3) page 124:

Interbane wrote:

Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability?

Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

No, I'm not saying nor implying those things. I will answer them, but I don't see how it has any bearing on your signature.

Logical principles are limited in where they apply. For example, quantum superposition.

The standards of evidence are the same for science and religion.

Isn't quantum superposition more of a probality issue than a logical one.

Anyway, if the same rules apply to science and religion is it not true that the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack for God as well?

But as Sigmund once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and I am afraid that in this case there is obviously no hidden meaning.

Sometimes a myth is just a myth. Rather than it being a story of miracles and supernatural events and impossible facts. You're confusing which of the two positions is more credible. Even if Roberts ideas seem outlandish, they are a thousand times more parsimonious than to claim that biblical events actually happened.

When you put human nature in the mix, knowing that men tell tall tales, knowing that men fabricate stories to explain events. The answer is painfully obvious.