Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
The resurrection is evidence of the deity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."
Yes. Intelligent design requires intelligence, and intelligence requires an entity to express it.........
As is exactly the same case for the Norse account of creation.
You also fail to recognize that my faith is not based upon whimsical reports spun out of a fertile imagination, but the well-respected testimony of others.
...I have equivalent testimony from well-respected historical figures in greece, rome, and Stockholm, I have written holy works describing these alternative creation theories, and I have subsequent historical evidence bearing witness to the authenticity of the documents.
Lastly, your compass must be out of whack where the mental processing of propositional data is concerned.
What in thunder is "propositional data"?
Obviously you are not alone in your judgements, but you err.
Obviously, you need a lesson in the nature of forensic evidence, and probably a refresher in tools of reasoning, if you think "propositional data" means anything substantive.
Deceit is equally apparent on the side of scientists who operate from an agenda which is outside of science. Such as was seen in the Miller-Urey amino acid experiments regarding the origin of life on early planet earth.
Your post didn't attempt to prove a resurrection. It attempted to prove that, at a minimum, the apostles thought they saw something extraordinary. It didn't accomplish even that (the worse analysis that can be made is that the gospels were fabrications), but I silently conceded the point because it's irrelevant.
Uh huh. Well, that makes you about the most reticent christian I've ever run across. I'm curious as to which part of the bible proscribes spreading the word of God to heretics and unbelievers. Does this mean all the Jesuits are bound for hell?
You're operating with definitions, then, that I'm unfamiliar with. I think my post was pretty generic. It would apply to any event eyewitnessed in history.
I merely stated, with minimal regard for supporting the contention, that "intentional misleading" as a motivation for the apostles was ruled out. Likewise, I stated that "unintentional misleading" is the worst one could charge against them.
We just went a round on this, but apparently, like most creationists, you have no problem reiterating a childishly pitiful arguement without responding sensibly to its rebuttal. Please cite the deceit pulled off by Urey in his experiment, so that we can take the case to the proper authorities and ruin Urey's scientific career.
The one from 2000 years ago before we had Photoshop.
What is the point of posting this? Were you actually hoping to bait me?
Shalom.
This is true, but it is a far cry from saying the supernatural has no place in scientific inquiry, which was the assertion I was addressing. If nothing else, scientific inquiry must recognize that the supernatural is beyond its scope. This gives the scientist much more freedom than saying scientific inquiry must presume there is no supernatural.
Shalom.
If you had seen Jesus walk on water, and He was not now on the water, how would you test it?
Shalom.
Shalom.
Do you know why?
1) Those, who wrote the second and third gospels, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.
2) Mark's Gospel (allegedly written by a disciple of Peter in Rome) is in 'poor Greek' when compared to that of Matthew and Luke.
3) So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark.
4) This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e., Markan priority).
5) Matthew the Apostle (an alleged eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account.
6) This indicates that (an alleged) Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark's Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources.
7) As the Gospel ascribed to Luke also improved on Mark's Greek, he must also have written late. This means the author could not have been a companion of Paul.
8) These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by (an alleged) John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus..
9) As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings cannot be seen as accurate accounts of what (an alleged) Jesus said and did.
10) The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories.
That's the "worse" analysis.
The statement that there is no evidence that Saul saw Jesus before the Crucifixion is not akin to saying that there is evidence Saul did not see Jesus before the Crucifixion.
Differences in details in a story are normal. Saul's recounting of the details of the days post-resurrection is slightly different than that of other men. This is normal. Saul had a different viewpoint and a different audience. If Saul's version were in lock-step (or even if the Gospels were in perfect agreement) we might have to presume a conspiracy.
Shalom.
I doubt it. I asked for evidence deities, not for evidence that people believed in deities. I would hope you can understand that.
I think my post was pretty generic. It would apply to any event eyewitnessed in history.
No, it wouldn't. Many eyewitness accounts match corroborating or contradictory physical evidence.
I merely stated, with minimal regard for supporting the contention, that "intentional misleading" as a motivation for the apostles was ruled out.
Except, it hasn't been ruled out. Even if one did rule it out, that is still not evidence for deities; that is evidence for apostles believing in deities.
Likewise, I stated that "unintentional misleading" is the worst one could charge against them.
No, it's not. The worst one could charge is that the gospels are outright fabrications that bear little connection to reality.
Evolution, by the way, is not a new scientific theory. It simply is atheism disguised for political reasons, under a new name.
Yes, namely people who are capable of observing, testing, and critically assessing evidence about the universe, whether it is preached to them by evolutionists, or self-evident as revelaed by the so-called laws of nature.
. . . the universe is larger than science.
Of course it is. but science does not have anything to observe but the known universe, which operates in a meanful enough way to be observed, comprehended, described, and assimilated to a small degree by the human mind, all of which is decent evidence that the universe is a designed entity.
It is not routinely observed that scientists are terribly delinquent in policing their own a priori assumptions. . .
Am I to conclude from this that science is incapable of bias? Is it incumbent upon science to declare that only "natural" explanations are qualified as explanatory of the universe when the word "natural" only means what is commonly known and observed? Is that not like choking a horse while urging it to run? You have demonstrated well that you fail to police your own a-priori assumptions. As I said, I hope you are not a professional scientist or a teacher.
PS. And there is also an additional variable to add to your two of whether any eyewitness accounts were truthful or untruthful (T v NT) and whether that was knowingly or unknowingly so (K v UK). The additional variable is whether the interpretation of what, if anything, had been seen was correct (C) or Incorrect (I). That gives you eight possibilities.
I am inquiring about the personal nature of the entity, or entities in question. Get it? "Personhood," not "cause" or "means."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.