Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[Deleted member 619]

Nothing is certain, outside of "In the beginning

You've already gone too far. As soon as you say 'beginning', you're going well beyond what the evidence can actually tell us.

 

[Collecemall]

I've posted this before but this is all I have to hear from Craig to dismiss him entirely.

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa" (pp. 47-48 in 3rd edition Reasonable Faith)

He doesn't care what reality shows or what the evidence is. He is going to defer to his own hallucinations. Even when he's been shown to be wrong as Carroll did he continues to use the same discredited arguments. He's dishonest, smarmy, and ridiculous. And THAT is your champion of apologetics.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Yep, if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

You can find similar formulations from many 'top' apologists. IIRC, Rumraket has a graphic with several of them.

Ah, found it:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Even Paul in the bible tells us if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is useless.But I can't help it if you choose to discount everything WLC says just because of one of his points as this does not make everything he says wrong.The big bang theory is substantiated science right now.I even posted a link about it that backs me up.Those who reject God ignore the big bang and this is all I see ya'll doing.You are instead focused on theoretical science that might or might not show there was no beginning like the big bang states,the big bang states the universe had a beginning.I realize that you all instead seek to hedge your bets to see this substantiated wrong,but it hasn't been substantiated yet.

The big bang theory points to the God of the bible because it tells us the universe had a beginning,but also both the bible and the big bang predict that the universe has an ending,this lines up with what the bible tells us and yet the other holy books of other religions do not line up,this means it points to the God of the bible.Let me back this up with evidence.Even though I think the devil is in the details in this article it backs me up about how the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts the universe has an ending,which a lot of you rejected.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-quantum-scales-laws-thermodynamics.html

 

[Deleted member 619]

Those who reject God ignore the big bang

How could I ignore the big bang when I've spent more than 25 years studying it?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Those who reject God ignore the big bang

How could I ignore the big bang when I've spent more than 25 years studying it, you fucking idiot?

I'm not getting personal but the point was WLC uses both the big bang and philosophy to make his point and his opponents ignore the big bang and kick the can down the road.His critics have no real substantiated way to show how you get a universe and all of the laws,time,mass and energy,etc that makes up the universe without a creator.Don't make this personal,like I'm implying you do.We can only go on what you write.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, Craig is making an argument of the form, "A + B -> C". If either A or B are invalid (i.e. one of his points) then of course we can reject his conclusion. That is how logic works.

 

[Deleted member 619]

WLC uses both the big bang and philosophy to make his point

Actually, he does neither. He misuses the big bang, largely because he doesn't remotely understand it (you can tell this, because he thinks it provides support for P2 of the Kalam Fallacy; it doesn't). He also doesn't use philosophy, because philosophy isn't in the business of drawing conclusions. The proper remit of philosophy is analysing questions, not in the hope of providing answers, but in the hope of ensuring that they';re the right kind of question.

The long and short of it is that Kalamity Kraig is a liar. Indeed, you can tell when he's lying, because his lips are moving. Citing that cunt is not helping your credibility.

and his opponents ignore the big bang

I don't ignore it, not least because I understand it a fuck of a lot better than your lying bum-chum. I understand it well enough to know categorically that it's entirely irrelevant with regard to your preposterous celestial peeping-tom. Ask yourself why such a small percentage of the world's cosmologists, all of whom are working with some iteration of big bang theory, don't worship your cosmic curtain-twitcher.

and kick the can down the road.

You need to get a new script. This was shit the first time you used it, and it isn't getting any better with age.

His critics have no real substantiated way to show how you get a universe and all of the laws,time,mass and energy,etc that makes up the universe without a creator.

Yes they do, but you're too stupid to understand them, and he's a lying cunt. You only need a creator if there's a creation, and there's no good reason to think that such an event ever occurred.

Don't make this personal,like I'm implying you do.We can only go on what you write.

Go on what you like, you have nothing but the lies of others, and you don't even understand them, which is why you keep erecting bollocks about thermodynamics and the big bang, all of which I understand better than you do, and none of which point to any creation, let alone a fucking creator. You're a liar, and your lies offend me.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Abel, Craig is making an argument of the form, "A + B -> C". If either A or B are invalid (i.e. one of his points) then of course we can reject his conclusion. That is how logic works.

It's even worse than that, because even if we allow both the premises in the Kalam, there's a massive and obvious fallacy of composition being committed in the route from premises to conclusion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Even Paul in the bible tells us if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is useless.

But I can't help it if you choose to discount everything WLC says just because of one of his points as this does not make everything he says wrong.

No, every single argument he makes fails on their own. They are all individually flawed on their own.
And he does so for reasons anyone claiming themselves to be a philosopher should be ashamed off.

The big bang theory is substantiated science right now.

That is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that support any of your claims.
The event that we call the big bang may well be the beginning of our particular corner that we call the known universe.
However "what happened" before the big bang, we are not even sure it is a question that makes sense. It might be that this is indeed the first universe, the first instance of an existing universe, but it may as likely be that universe is cyclic and it had collapsed and expanded again many times before.
The truth is we don't know. And anybody who claims to know is lying. Specially creationist when they chalk this unknown to God.
And before you bring the God of the gaps argument let me shot it down now. If there was one thing that we do know is that it couldn't have been caused by a God, as Christians put God is outside time and space. And there can not be such a thing as "cause", the word is completely devoid of any meaning with the "temporal" relation between the phenomena that does the "causing" and the phenomena perceived as the "effect".
To say that atheist have a problem whit explaining the origin of the universe (which we don't, we admit we don't know because that is the only honest position anyone can have), and claim that a superman (who is interested in what you do with your genitalia in your own privacy, and has many other traits that are almost uniquely human) did it.
It's nonsense.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I'm just gona let this here.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm just gona let this here.

I used to listen to him but he thinks he can explain to God why he rejected him on judgment day.He is willing to take his chances.I'll watch this.This guy is a lot more interesting than a lot of atheists.


OK he is doing the same thing making the laws that govern the universe that came into being at the big bang effect God,who is eternal and outside space and time,again he is ignoring the big bang theory which is what my point has been.The big bang tells us the laws of physics came into being after that initial expansion from that very small point,he ignores this and somehow makes the law of physics apply to God somehow with woo woo science.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm just gona let this here.

I have a lot of time for him. A very clear thinker.

 

[Deleted member 619]

he thinks he can explain to God why he rejected him on judgment day.

We differ on that. If Yahweh turns out to be the deity in charge, he simply isn't worthy of any explanation. He's worthy only of a swift kick in the knackers, which is what he'll get from me should we ever chance to meet.

I think it unlikely that I'm that wrong though. Were I to offer an explanation, it would suffice that Kalamity Kraig was the best he could muster, and that's simply not good enough to warrant believing in such a pile of bollocks. If your god is real, he knows what it would take for me to accept it, which means he chooses for me not to believe.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

he thinks he can explain to God why he rejected him on judgment day.

We differ on that. If Yahweh turns out to be the deity in charge, he simply isn't worthy of any explanation. He's worthy only of a swift kick in the knackers, which is what he'll get from me should we ever chance to meet.

I think it unlikely that I'm that wrong though. Were I to offer an explanation, it would suffice that Kalamity Kraig was the best he could muster, and that's simply not good enough to warrant believing in such a pile of bollocks. If your god is real, he knows what it would take for me to accept it, which means he chooses for me not to believe.

Now is the time to find out.I realize you think you have many reasons to reject God and I don't know what kind of evidence would convince you,as for me it was easy once I was saved by Jesus,from that day forward I knew he was real and I've only grown over time in my faith.I have many examples of evidence that backs up God's word as true,keep in mind every believer already knows it cannot be proven 100% based on the world around us because God's word is revealed more true as time goes on.but also because it requires faith to please God.

But the greatest evidence to me is the way it changed me as a person the moment I was saved by Jesus,I did not change myself,he changed me which is a miracle that sceptics never understand but Jesus said " Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." And it is true and happens when people are born again by the Holy Spirit. So I would say if you want proof or evidence the be willing to repent and believe in Jesus and to seek him with all of your heart and soul and he will save you if you truly believe and receive him.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=6K6lcz9Ude4

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

OK he is doing the same thing making the laws that govern the universe that came into being at the big bang effect God,who is eternal and outside space and time,

I'm sorry you don't get to just assign random properties such as this and get away with it.
You know this how exactly?

But ok, since you were unfortunate enough to make enough rope, tie a noose around your neck and even kick the bucket from under your feet. Let us see this hanging to the end.

1. The universe is by definition the collection everything which exist. If your God is outside of the universe, meaning that it does not belong in the set of everything which exist, it means that God does not exist by definition.

2. If the laws that govern the universe didn't exist prior to God having created them, I would assume this will include time it self. However if there was no time prior to God having created it, then God could not have intended because without time there is can not be no to state of affairs, mainly one in which God decides to create the universe and then creating it.
If on the other hand you claim that God deciding, God acting on that decision, and the Universe existing is the same state, then God could not be the cause of the universe because his decision unrelated to his action and both are unrelated to God existing, because the Universe already existed when he decided to make it.

3. Us being creatures inside time and space and God being outside time and space, how can God have any effect what so ever that would lead to us be able to distinguish God from literal non existence. I.e. Even if a God really did exist, what justification could anyone have to say that God really did exist?

You can't just spout nonsense like this without its consequence.

The big bang tells us the laws of physics came into being after that initial expansion from that very small point,he ignores this and somehow makes the law of physics apply to God somehow with woo woo science.

Have you listen to him? There is nothing in there that even comes remotely close to that. That was a complete fabrication.
What he does do is to show that those claims are incoherent and devoid of any meaning. I.e. that they are this thing that we call illogical.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Now is the time to find out.I realize you think you have many reasons to reject God and I don't know what kind of evidence would convince you,

For me it's simple. He could just show up, I mean it isn't to much to ask, according to the bible he did that sort of thing all the time. And according to your claims, he is God and he clearly is interested in my salvation, and he certainly has the power to do it. I mean, I ain't asking for much.

.but also because it requires faith to please God.

Why? Why would a God require faith?

So I would say if you want proof or evidence the be willing to repent and believe in Jesus and to seek him with all of your heart and soul and he will save you if you truly believe and receive him.

Sorry, I did that when I was christian, look at me now. There was a big difference between me and everyone else that stayed as a christian, I believed to the point that I didn't think that I need to make excuses when I didn't felt any warmth or knocked of my feet by the holy spirit, I believed that thing would happen the way people told me it would happen and I didn't had to make excuses when they didn't. I didn't had to make excuses for God because he was self evident, turns out it wasn't. Turns out none of it was truth, turns out I was wrong.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I realize you think you have many reasons to reject God

Nope, just the one. Not a shred of compelling evidence.

and I don't know what kind of evidence would convince you,as for me it was easy once I was saved by Jesus,

What the holy fuck does that even mean? Saved from what? Saved how? How was this salvation manifest? Do you think that somebody with a functioning brain would agree that your experience constituted salvation?

from that day forward I knew he was real and I've only grown over time in my faith.

Blahbliddyblahblah. Meaningless fucking wibble. Frankly, I've shat more coherent turds than this guff.

I have many examples of evidence that backs up God's word as true,

Total fucking drivel. You don't even have any examples of god's fucking word, let alone evidence that supports it. What you have are the wibbling of people even more fucking stupid than you, which is an achievement of gargantuan proportions.

keep in mind every believer already knows it cannot be proven 100% based on the world around us because God's word is revealed more true as time goes on.but also because it requires faith to please God.

In other words, believe my fuckwittery and you'll be a fuckwit too. Do you even understand how fucking stupid this is?

But the greatest evidence to me is the way it changed me as a person the moment I was saved by Jesus,

You mean you were capable of thought before? Every born-again person I ever met seems to have suffered from their brains dribbling out of the back of their skull.

I did not change myself,he changed me which is a miracle that sceptics never understand but Jesus said " Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." And it is true and happens when people are born again by the Holy Spirit. So I would say if you want proof or evidence the be willing to repent and believe in Jesus and to seek him with all of your heart and soul and he will save you if you truly believe and receive him.

Well, if people don't take LSD, they won't see pink elephants. If you think that's an argument, you're more stupid than I thought, which is again a colossal achievement.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=6K6lcz9Ude4

Oh look, an apologetics video. Post as many of these as you like. I don't watch the videos of credulous morons. They take too long to say nothing. At least with forum posts, I can read at my own pace.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

OK he is doing the same thing making the laws that govern the universe that came into being at the big bang effect God,who is eternal and outside space and time,

I'm sorry you don't get to just assign random properties such as this and get away with it.
You know this how exactly?

But ok, since you were unfortunate enough to make enough rope, tie a noose around your neck and even kick the bucket from under your feet. Let us see this hanging to the end.

1. The universe is by definition the collection everything which exist. If your God is outside of the universe, meaning that it does not belong in the set of everything which exist, it means that God does not exist by definition.

2. If the laws that govern the universe didn't exist prior to God having created them, I would assume this will include time it self. However if there was no time prior to God having created it, then God could not have intended because without time there is can not be no to state of affairs, mainly one in which God decides to create the universe and then creating it.
If on the other hand you claim that God deciding, God acting on that decision, and the Universe existing is the same state, then God could not be the cause of the universe because his decision unrelated to his action and both are unrelated to God existing, because the Universe already existed when he decided to make it.

3. Us being creatures inside time and space and God being outside time and space, how can God have any effect what so ever that would lead to us be able to distinguish God from literal non existence. I.e. Even if a God really did exist, what justification could anyone have to say that God really did exist?

You can't just spout nonsense like this without its consequence.

The big bang tells us the laws of physics came into being after that initial expansion from that very small point,he ignores this and somehow makes the law of physics apply to God somehow with woo woo science.

Have you listen to him? There is nothing in there that even comes remotely close to that. That was a complete fabrication.
What he does do is to show that those claims are incoherent and devoid of any meaning. I.e. that they are this thing that we call illogical.

You are assuming much without considering Almighty God who is eternal and outside space and time.I realize you don't understand the God of the bible but he is not a created god and you can't compare him to one and you are.You are comparing Almighty God to a created god.So your whole premise is flawed from the get-go.You are ignoring the science behind the big bang still.Why?Why would you somehow believe that Almighty God that created the universe and all of the laws that govern his universe effect him somehow? You are not even thinking logical,no offense but when comparing various view points you must consider each on its own merits to have a genuine answer.

Why would you think that God could not step into his creation if he wanted to?If you designed a virtual world,you could design the laws that make it up and could intervene if you so chose to do.

 

[Deleted member 619]

For me it's simple. He could just show up, I mean it isn't to much to ask, according to the bible he did that sort of thing all the time. And according to your claims, he is God and he clearly is interested in my salvation, and he certainly has the power to do it. I mean, I ain't asking for much.

It would certainly be a start, wouldn't it? :lol:

For me, the real killer evidence would be nothing. That's not to say that there's not a thing that would convince me, of course, it's to say that, given what I know about the laws of the universe, the thing that would convince me that a miracle-performing entity existed in the universe would be 'nothing' in a persistent state.

ACB here thinks that the BB is evidence for his creator, but given what we know about the laws that govern the universe, it's pretty clear that, if there's any such thing as a brute fact, it's the existence of something rather than nothing, not least because 'nothing' is a crystal clear violation of the uncertainty principle.

To somebody not well-versed in the bleeding edge of physics, I'm sure that causal arguments such as those erected by Kalamity Kraig sound compelling. To those of us who have a clue, not so much. Indeed, it's worth noting exactly what the cutting edge tells us about Aristotelian notions of causation.

Here's Brian Greene:

Quantum mechanics is a conceptual framework for understanding the microscopic properties of the universe. And just as special relativity and general relativity require dramatic changes in our worldview when things are moving very quickly or when they are very massive, quantum mechanics reveals that the universe has equally if not more startling properties when examined on atomic and subatomic distance scales. In 1965, Richard Feynman, one of the greatest practitioners of quantum mechanics, wrote:

"There was a time when the papers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when one man did because he was the only guy that caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in one way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"

Although Feynman expressed this view more than three decades ago, it applies equally well today. What he meant is that although the special and general theories of relativity require a drastic revision of previous ways of seeing the world, when one fully accepts the basic principles underlying them, the new and unfamiliar implications for space and time follow directly from careful logical reasoning. If you ponder the descriptions of Einstein's work in the preceding two chapters with adequate intensity, you will - if even for just a moment - recognize the inevitability of the conclusions we have drawn. Quantum mechanics is different. By 1928 or so, many of the mathematical formulas and rules of quantum mechanics has been put in place and, ever since, it has been used to make the most precise and successful numerical predictions in the history of science. But in a real sense those who use quantum mechanics find themselves following rules and formulas laid down by the "founding fathers" of the theory - calculational procedures that are straightforward to carry out - without any real understanding why the procedures work or what they really mean. Unlike relativity, few if any people ever grasp quantum mechanics at a "soulful" level.

What are we to make of this? Does it mean that on a microscopic level the universe operates in ways so obscure and unfamiliar that the human mind, evolved over eons to cope with phenomena on familiar everyday scales, is unable to fully grasp "what really goes on"? Or, might it be that through historical accident physicists have constructed an extremely awkward formulation of quantum mechanics that, although quantitatively successful, obfuscates the true nature of reality? No one knows. Maybe some time in the future some clever person will see clear to a new formulation that will fully reveal the "whys" and the "whats" of quantum mechanics. And then again, maybe not. The only thing we know with certainty is that quantum mechanics absolutely and unequivocally shows us that a number of basic concepts essential to our understanding of the familiar everyday world fail to have any meaning when our focus narrows to the microscopic realm. As a result, we must significantly modify both our language and our reasoning when attempting to understand and explain the universe on atomic and subatomic scales.

The Elegant Universe - Greene 1999

This is exactly what Carroll was talking about in his debate with Kraig when he said:

The problem with this premise (Kalam P1) is that it's false. There's almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr Craig's presentation. But there's a bigger problem with it which is that it is not even false. The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting-edge stuff 2500 years ago; today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics - that's what the word metaphysics means. In modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook. you will not find the words 'transcendent cause' anywhere. What you do find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way that physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns. Unbreakable rules; laws of nature. Given the world at one point in time, we will tell you what happens next. There is no need for any extra metaphysical baggage like transcendent causes on top of that. It's precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works. The question you should be asking is what is the best model of the universe that science can come up with.

Greer-Heard debate on God & Cosmology 2014