atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
#151
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Then it is up to you to show I am also ill-informed and ignorant

Actually this is not how it works. That we are all ignorant and ill-informed is the default position until proven otherwise. Claims of special knowledge will be dismissed.

When you make a claim, it is up to you to supply your burden of proof too. How many times a day do atheists make this claim of ignorant and ill-informed Christians on these threads?
#152
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
How much do you know of the Preterist argument? If you don't know much about it how can you say it is insufficient?

As I understand it, preterism is concered with the prophetic elements of scripture.  Preterists argue amongst themselves concering whether a prophesy has alreay been fullfilled or is yet to be fulfilled - they do not concern themselves so much with the validity of prophesy; the truth and reality of prophesy is taken as a given.
Yes, Preterism is for it has major implications in reconciling what otherwise does not make sense. People like Bertram Russell and Dag Hammarskjöld's understood the conflict. So with eschatology conflicting and opposite positions both can't be true. With full Preterism, either all prophecy was fulfilled within the 1st-century or futurism in one of its forms is the more reasonable position.

Prophesy flies in the face of scientific understanding of the world.   As I see it, that means we have a stark choice; we can posit the existence of the 'supernatural' not restricted by such things as cause and effect and finite properties or we can reject the reality of prophesy.  
Yet, to some degree, we can use science to verify its truth claims. If someone predicts and records a series of events before they happen and they all come to pass, then history bears witness and history is our checkpoint. It does speak of the supernatural God, for no human, other than Jesus Christ could predict so many events with such accuracy and not be considered as who He claims to be. If you know of any then please feel free to list them.  





#153
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
How many times a day do atheists make this claim of ignorant and ill-informed Christians on these threads?
The same amount of times Christians exhibit their ignorance and lack of being informed. These are explained to the Christian who ignores the explanations in favor of their ignorant and ill-informed beliefs.
#154
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
When you make a claim, it is up to you to supply your burden of proof
I have not made any claim I merely do not accept yours.

#155
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't believe in magic, gods, flying spaghetti monsters either. Nor do I substitute something so ridiculous as magic for God. 

Fine allow me to restate my post in a way that you will understand. Honestly it's no more than I told.you to do.

I don't have the answers to any of these  questions but that doesn't mean that your god is the answer.
#156
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop


How many times a day do atheists make this claim of ignorant and ill-informed Christians on these threads?
The same amount of times Christians exhibit their ignorance and lack of being informed. These are explained to the Christian who ignores the explanations in favor of their ignorant and ill-informed beliefs.


I'm not the one ignorant or ill-informed about God.
#157
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
When you make a claim, it is up to you to supply your burden of proof
I have not made any claim I merely do not accept yours.

You have made many claims:


"Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive."

#158
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
all have about the same level of evidence 

They do, specifically anecdotal testimony. If evidence beyond anecdotal exists for any of these propositions kindly provide it and I will gladly retract this statement

saying god did it you may as well say magic. 
Unless you can demonstrate the existence of.any gods this is true as any undeminstrable claim can and should be dismissed.

the bible is not evidence
The bible is not evidence in and of itself. It would need to be demonstrated that anything in the bible were true and it would take actual evidence beyond anecdotal to provide such a demonstrotion.

Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes 
This is not a claim it is an advisement on what sorts of claims will and will not convince me of your position althoughno claim will conv8nce me without evidence.
#159
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

This answer is out of context and does not address the double standard you've been charged with. If you think morality to be objectively based, then your opinion ('man was made in the image of god') has no place as a foundation of morality. 
A double standard? It is not just my opinion, SkepticalOne. If the Bible is what it claims to be then it is objectively based. 



There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).
Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 
You do get an is from an is though!  It's not a matter of mankind ought to be concerned for itself, rather mankind is concerned for itself.

Science, describing natural selection describes what is, not what ought to be. There is a difference between describing what is and what moralizing what ought to be. 



Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?
This is not a fair representation of what I've been advocating.  We are either going to have an honest conversation, Peter, or we are not going to have one.
I'm trying to describe the consequences of a worldview that makes up moral rights and wrongs. I'm being as honest as I know how to be, SkepticalOne. 


I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.
Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 
You're switching from individuals to populations.  The individuals you referenced ARE extremes as they are not typical.
Individuals make up populations. People get caught up in the "majority" view. Abortion becomes the norm because of the majority view or because of the gatekeepers (those who control and filter down to the masses) who convince the individuals what is right according to their preferences. 


#160
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this [...]
We agree people have a concern - that's a start.  It may be the first time we've agreed on anything!



Progress!

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god
Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 
Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 
Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 

There are instances of animals looking out for other species.  For instance, dolphins have been known to defend other species (including humans) from shark attacks.  So, it is certainly something more than instinctively protecting their own.

True, but do we really know the reason why?


Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive
affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice. 
Again, this is a double standard.  Per Christian beliefs, if Hitler accepted Jesus as his lord and saviour, there would be no justice as Hitler goes to heaven. Perfect justice is not expected in either view.
It is not a double standard. The Bible teaches no one is righteous, in and of themselves. That would include you or Hitler or me. The person who believes and repents is under the grace and mercy of God. The question is would someone who has so hardened their hearts to God and ignored His standards hear the message and be saved? That is between God and Hitler. I am not the judge although to me it seems unlikely. But the same could be said of me. Paul felt the same way. Jesus taught that you recognize the good tree from its roots. A bad tree does not produce good fruit.  

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 
Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.
You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

There's no confusion. The point of the analogy was to show that within the context of a subjective principle (human life has value), objective observations can be made (murder is wrong).
Again, you placed quantitative values and qualitative values in the same light. Is my personal opinion that the water is hot a moral right or just my preference? Now you are sneaking in moral judgments (human life has value, and murder is wrong). They differ from personal preference on whether the water is hot.
 

I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 
I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

It's safe to say, we don't have a complete and accurate understanding of the universe much less a complete and accurate understanding of what that means.  Yet, our understanding of the universe increases nonetheless. "Best" is unnecessary and hyperbolic in the context of acquiring knowledge, be it moral or otherwise.
If you have no ideal value then what do you have to compare better too? Good can mean two different and opposite things to two different people. Obviously and logically one of them (sometimes both) is wrong. There has to be an unchanging standard (or values are shifting) to attack a belief or else it can change and mean its opposite over time. That is the witness of history. Not long ago abortion was a moral wrong for an abortion but for the threat of the mother's life. Now it is morally acceptable for the woman to choose. Which is the correct position, now or then? Who is to say - you, those who push their agenda and are in power? 

#161
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@drafterman
Couple of common fallacies here:

Morality to an atheist worldview is a relative thing. It is based on preference and behaviorism. You can't get an ought from an is, a prescriptive from a descriptive. You can describe what you like (subjectivism/behaviorism) but that doesn't make it good, and the problem with relativism is that no society or culture can be any better than any other. If you hold a materialistic worldview then truth and values are measured through the five senses. How can you measure goodness through those senses (the descriptive)? Values can't be measured by the same token
Repugnant Hitler's Germany is no more wrong than Kim Jong-un's North Korea or Trump's USA.
I don't see anywhere that an atheists must believe or accept relative morality. The only necessarily limitation is that, whatever kind of morality they believe in, it can't be sourced to a god.

Furthermore, I don't really see how theists get a pass here with respect to morality. Different religions, different denominations, carve morality out in different ways. The morality one ends up with is almost entirely based on the random circumstances of their birth and upbringing, which are entirely relative and subjective. The only difference is, religious morality has the lack of humility to describe itself as objectively right and everything else as objectively wrong.

Given this, the objections levied against "atheist" relative morality aren't unique to it. It is correct that, without some higher level framework, you can't judge between different relative frameworks, but again, that applies to the variety of different religious frameworks as well. How can we say that Christian Morality according to the Bible is "any better" than Islamic Morality according to the Quran?

The most egregious error is this notion that because a system is relative, it can't be used to judge anything. Well that's simply false. The entire point of a framework is to make such judgments. It's just that different frameworks can judge the same situation differently. It doesn't eliminate the ability to judge one as better than the other, it just means that such judgement is only relevant to those people that participate within that framework. Which, for yet another time, applies just as much to religious as it does to irreligious frameworks. You think a Buddhist gives a shit as to whether or they're observing the Sabbath?

Thanks for the post. I don't think I received notification. I will address your concerns tomorrow if I remember.  

Topic's author
#162
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Let me suggest that critters have been able to distinguish between 'hot things' and 'cold things' for millions of years, long before they had any concept of thermodynamics and 'heat energy'.   Our 'heat sense' is a thermometer -  it's not as precise or reliable as a mercury-in-glass affair but it does the same job.

That is to say that the more objective heat energy something has the subjectively hotter it feels - that correlation isn't accidental; its the whole point of evolving a heat sense. 

Suppose our 'moral sense' is very like out 'heat sense' but it estimates, not heat energy but, 'harm'.   That doesn't mean our moral sense accurately measures the harm or benefit of something - it means we get a sensation that is a rough and ready estimate of harm/benefit similar to the way our heat sense gives us a rough and ready estimate of temperature.   


#163
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
This statement only holds water if you correlate morality directly with harm and wellbeing. I am willing to accept that standard but it is not a standard that everyone agrees to which is the definition of subjective.
Topic's author
#164
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin

I am asking you to think about the issues in terms of brain processes rather than abstracts. 
  
As eusocial animals it is necessary we can distinguish between that which is good for us and our group from that which is bad for us and our our group.   I am suggesting that somewhere in your head a lump of neurones is repsonsible for taking a number of inputs and outputting its best guess as to something's probable "harm or benefit", those words being intended broadly.  That output is placed into your consciousness and is your 'subjective judgement' of its morality.

As we are dealing with what is a neural net, the mapping between input and output may be complicated and messy - far more then simply subjective morality begin proportioal to 'harm/wellbeing' and can be wrong in many cases.   Also as brain are all different, different people may well judge the 'morality' of the same thing differently.





#165
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Let me suggest that critters have been able to distinguish between 'hot things' and 'cold things' for millions of years, long before they had any concept of thermodynamics and 'heat energy'.   Our 'heat sense' is a thermometer -  it's not as precise or reliable as a mercury-in-glass affair but it does the same job.
Let me suggest that critters have been able to distinguish between 'hot things' and 'cold things' for millions of years, long before they had any concept of thermodynamics and 'heat energy'.   Our 'heat sense' is a thermometer -  it's not as precise or reliable as a mercury-in-glass affair but it does the same job.

That is to say that the more objective heat energy something has the subjectively hotter it feels - that correlation isn't accidental; its the whole point of evolving a heat sense.  
There is a temperature point in which the heat will sear and scold your skin. That is not subjective. Putting your hand into a fire or touching an oven element will cause blistering and depending on how long and how hot the degree of the burn will be different. 


Suppose our 'moral sense' is very like out 'heat sense' but it estimates, not heat energy but, 'harm'.   That doesn't mean our moral sense accurately measures the harm or benefit of something - it means we get a sensation that is a rough and ready estimate of harm/benefit similar to the way our heat sense gives us a rough and ready estimate of temperature.    
I'm sure it does estimate the harm since the objective best is something we can't obtain for the most part. Tell me of anyone who has never lied, or never stolen anything, or has never coveted something they did not own, as just three examples. So we know these things are wrong, yet we do them anyway.


#166
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
I am asking you to think about the issues in terms of brain processes rather than abstracts. 
   
As eusocial animals it is necessary we can distinguish between that which is good for us and our group from that which is bad for us and our our group.   I am suggesting that somewhere in your head a lump of neurones is repsonsible for taking a number of inputs and outputting its best guess as to something's probable "harm or benefit", those words being intended broadly.  That output is placed into your consciousness and is your 'subjective judgement' of its morality.

As we are dealing with what is a neural net, the mapping between input and output may be complicated and messy - far more then simply subjective morality begin proportioal to 'harm/wellbeing' and can be wrong in many cases.   Also as brain are all different, different people may well judge the 'morality' of the same thing differently.

If all you are is electro-biochemical impulses what makes your impulses any better than mine? Depending on how they react determines how you react. What is wrong with that? If Hitler's brain processes say killing Jews is good, how can you criticize this unless you think some brain activity is bad and it actually is? With evolutionary processes what is there to make anything good? And the other point you make (underlined) is that it all becomes subjective and right and wrong is blurred. 

Why should I believe my brain impulses if they are so subjective and what makes a brain impulse right? Are they not DETERMINED by my genetics and the environmental factors or pressures I am exposed to? What is wrong with that? Are you going to penalize me because of how my brain functions?  They are determined by evolutionary processes that mean nothing ultimately? What happens if someone doesn't want to live because their evolutionary processes tell them there is no ultimate meaning and they are so angry that they are going to take as many down with them as possible? Is this not too just the way the person's brain functions? What is wrong with that? 

The point, if you are nothing more than physical beings who are determined in this manner how can you say it is right or wrong? It just is what happens. 

Topic's author
#167
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
My point is that it is only recently we hae started to thin in terms of conflicted brain processes.   Primitive man saw it a fight between gods and devils; later it was about 'cosmic consciousness' and 'destiny'.   But really its justs down to the way our brains haver evolved to help us reproduce before we die.

#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

"Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive."

all have about the same level of evidence 


They do, specifically anecdotal testimony. If evidence beyond anecdotal exists for any of these propositions kindly provide it and I will gladly retract this statement
Everything above are statements that you made. Not all the evidence is the same. The testimonies of the gospel writers and NT writers is credible from an internal and external standpoint. People, places, events can be confirmed by outside historical sources. These gospel writers speak of events that actually happened. They speak of prophecies that come to pass in their lifetime. They testify to the most significantly important events in the history of the world. So, their level of credibility is different from these other sources. These other accounts of myth, which you continually hint at, you try to group the Bible into the same category based on "the same level of evidence?" The evidence is outstanding regarding the biblical accounts and almost non-existent in the others. Please lay down the evidence from history from these other accounts, like the flying spaghetti monster.  


saying god did it you may as well say magic. 

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of.any gods this is true as any undeminstrable claim can and should be dismissed.
I have offered to give reasoned and logical evidence. No one (other than SkepticalOne) took me up in any way on the factual statements from the prophecy thread. Yet you and they continue to repeat this mantra because you don't know enough of the evidence to dispute it. You are ignorant of the evidence, not me.


the bible is not evidence

The bible is not evidence in and of itself. It would need to be demonstrated that anything in the bible were true and it would take actual evidence beyond anecdotal to provide such a demonstrotion.
I have offered to do that and you have not taken me up on the offer. How reasonable is that? The Bible is evidence and it contains evidence that what is said is true.

Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes 

This is not a claim it is an advisement on what sorts of claims will and will not convince me of your position although no claim will conv8nce me without evidence.
You put words into my mouth that I do not believe. You tried to paint me as believing this nonsense. Now you are backstepping and trying to justify what you said. I never said anything of biblical horoscopes.

My biblical horoscopes? What are you talking about? What horoscopes? 

"Don't bother" is another backdoor out of the discussion. 

Prophecy or predictions are reasonable to believe as happening before the events took place, in both testaments. A horoscope has to do with the position of stars and planets.


#169
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

My point is that it is only recently we ha[v]e started to thin[k] in terms of conflicted brain processes.   Primitive man saw it a fight between gods and devils; later it was about 'cosmic consciousness' and 'destiny'.   But really its justs down to the way our brains haver evolved to help us reproduce before we die.

Is it really? How can you be sure your brains evolution is on the right track now? I see it as just another physical process that has no truth to it if that is all it is based on. What makes you think your brain impulses on the subject are reliable. Some evolve one way and others another way. Why is your way the way that corresponds to the truth?
#170
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It seems clear to me we are talking past one another and you and I should agree to disagree at this point.  
#171
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems clear to me we are talking past one another and you and I should agree to disagree at this point.  
You made some claims. I just questioned the legitimacy of those claims based on an evolutionary process which you rely on for your understanding. That is the way you see things happening but is it the actual way they happened. My worldview is not built entirely on evolutionary processes, and not in any way based on macro-evolution (I don't believe we had a common ancestor, other than God). 

How accurate is the evolutionary process since it is not mindful or caring towards you? You survive supposedly because you adapt and others do not. How you adapt is what makes your survival possible, not because it is right or wrong. It just happens. There is no reason behind evolution. You build that reason into the process. 


#172
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
As I said, at this point we should agree to disagree.  I don't believe explaining my views to you again will help the situation.
#173
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
As I said, at this point we should agree to disagree.  I don't believe explaining my views to you again will help the situation.
No problem then.

Thanks for the discussion!
#174
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not the one ignorant or ill-informed about God.
And yet your god is unknowable.

#175
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The testimonies of the gospel writers and NT writers is credible from an internal and external standpoint. 
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
These gospel writers speak of events that actually happened.
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
They speak of prophecies that come to pass in their lifetime. They testify to the most significantly important events in the history of the world. So, their level of credibility is different from these other sources. 
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
Please lay down the evidence from history from these other accounts, like the flying spaghetti monster.  
There is no sufficient evidence for these propositions that is the entire point. 
The evidence is outstanding regarding the biblical accounts 
Ok then present it.
The Bible is evidence and it contains evidence that what is said is true.
The bible makes claims. That some one wrote a book does not make the contents of that book true.
Prophecy or predictions are reasonable to believe as happening before the events took place, in both testaments.
This is a claim not evidence of any... You know what, I think you get it.

The prophecies in the bible fall primarily into two categories. One is prophecy that was predicted in the bible and fulfilled in the same book. I can make prophecy after the fact too. The second is vague prophecy with open ended time frames. Given a long enough time frame even very unlikely events become virtually assured and many of these so called predictions hardly describe unlikely events (for example there are always wars and rumors of wars so that is a not so much a prediction as an understanding of the violent nature of human beings). Neither of these categories is particularly impressive as prophecy goes. Rather like a horoscope. 

You are of course under no special obligation to provide evidence of your position but in that case don't be surprised when I dismiss your claim.
#176
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
The testimonies of the gospel writers and NT writers is credible from an internal and external standpoint. 
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

I could take a lot of time documenting the evidence but I'll give you a brief synopsis. I like what Jim Wallace, a homicide detective said about evidence:

1. Were the gospels written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses? 
2. Try to Find Some Corroboration for the Claims of the Witnesses
3. Examine the Consistency and Accuracy of the Witnesses
4. Examine the Presence of Bias on the Part of the Witnesses

"Every time I encounter an historical objection related to the Gospels, I expect there to be a wealth of information on both sides of the issue; skeptics will have written volumes and Christian apologists will have responded in kind. How is anyone to know which side of the equation to trust? I typically use the four principles I’ve just described to evaluate both the objection and
 the response. Which side is referencing the account that was written earliest, is best corroborated, has been best documented over time and is least biased
?...We
can rely on these four overarching principles to help us determine which position (held by the skeptic or the Christian) is most reasonable."

Sound advice.


Now for a few examples:

1. There is no mention of an already destroyed temple or city (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:20), yet every gospel and most epistles speak of a soon coming time of trouble to these Mosaic Covenant people (Matthew 23:31, 36, 38; Matthew 3:7, 10). This is highly significant for an OT people whose life revolved around their relationship to God through temple rituals and worship. In Hebrews, there is no mention of an already destroyed temple or sacrificial system (Hebrews 9:8, 8:13). Yet there are constant warnings of soon coming judgment ( Hebrews 10:37; 12:26-27). So the authors bear witness to being early writers before the fall of Jerusalem. 
2. Concerning the historicity, life, death, and resurrection there are around 18 extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus Christ including Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55 120 A.D.), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and some Gnostic sources.


Other biblical attestations are listed here:



These gospel writers speak of events that actually happened.
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

The most obvious is the destruction of Jerusalem. The gospel writers speak of a soon coming destruction, within the lifetime of those 1st-century audiences. 

Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


We know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. Josephus speaks of its destruction in great detail.

#177
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
No nation lasts forever. Therefore the prediction that a nation will fall is not particularly impressive. Someday America will fall. That prediction does not make me a prophet.

Since you seem intent on discussing prophecy to the exclusion of all else however let's assume for a moment that some biblical prophecy is true and impressive. It still doesn't tell us where this prophecy originates only that predictions were made. Even if the prophets claim a source how can we ever demonstrate that the source they claim is the actual source of the prophecy? It could have been from some god(s) or it could have been some devil(s) or it could have been beamed into their mind by space aliens or they could be the source themselves without the need for an external agency. Even if biblical prophecy were impressive as prophecy it is still unimpressive as evidence of any god(s).
#178
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
No nation lasts forever. Therefore the prediction that a nation will fall is not particularly impressive. Someday America will fall. That prediction does not make me a prophet.
No earthly one has. 




Since you seem intent on discussing prophecy to the exclusion of all else however let's assume for a moment that some biblical prophecy is true and impressive. It still doesn't tell us where this prophecy originates only that predictions were made. Even if the prophets claim a source how can we ever demonstrate that the source they claim is the actual source of the prophecy? It could have been from some god(s) or it could have been some devil(s) or it could have been beamed into their mind by space aliens or they could be the source themselves without the need for an external agency. Even if biblical prophecy were impressive as prophecy
it is still unimpressive as evidence of any god(s).

I discuss prophecy because the unbeliever keeps insisting there is no proof that the Bible is reliable or accurate in what it says. Once I establish that it is in this area it leaves the question open as to it being so in other areas. And who do you know who can predict things before they happen with 100% accuracy? God would be able to do this. 

When you say, "let us assume...that some biblical prophecy is true and impressive" - it is. Daniel 9:24-27 predicts the fall of the city and temple ONE other time. We know that happened in AD 70. The timeframe was given, 490 years from the issuing of the decree, plus the killing of the Anointed One and the six specific conditions to take place gives a specific timeframe of when this will happen.

You suggest some other means could be possible, yet this reads into Scripture things it does not say. It is pure speculation. What we are given information of in the writings comes to pass. We are told that God gives Daniel visions of what will happen to HIS people in the far-off future. The same for other prophets. That claim a revelation from God and a warning of judgment to these Mosaic Covenant people for breaking the covenant. That warning will result in the curses of Deuteronomy 28 if they do not repent. They do not. 

Exodus 24:3 (NASB)
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the [a]ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

Deuteronomy 28:15 (NASB)
Consequences of Disobedience
15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

Then Deuteronomy 28 lists the curses, these same curses we witness in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. 

The Olivet Discourse gives very precise predictions about what will happen to Jesus' disciples and Israel after He leaves them and before He returns. The return will result in the judgment of the living and the dead. It will be a time for Israel like no other it has ever experienced for at that time God will divorce Israel as His people and take a new bride, a faithful one. 

 Matthew 24:3 (NASB)
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”


Jesus then goes on to tell His disciples what will happen and the pronoun 'you' that follows signifies what will happen and when these things will happen when He will come again, and when the age they live in will end. After His death Acts records many of these things happening, where they are persecuted, come before kings, and are killed because of Him. 

Not one NT writing tells of an already destroyed temple or city, yet everywhere in the NT we see warnings of NEAR, SOON, QUICK, AT HAND, judgment. It is all about to happen. AD 70 is the end of the Mosaic age. There is no longer a temple to bring what is necessary to fulfill the Law of Moses, an animal sacrifice offered on their behalf. There is no longer a priesthood to act as a mediator between the people and God. There is no longer feast days and the ritual system of worship as prescribed by the Mosaic Covenant, for these feast days required specific animal sacrifices. None of this can be fulfilled after AD 70. What these people had known for fifteen hundred years, this special relationship with God is no longer possible as prescribed. It is taken out of the way because of their disobedience. God continually sent prophets to warn those people to turn back from idols. They never listened. Then He sent His Son. They rejected Him, so God in His mercy gave them 40 years to repent and then the judgment.
(Hebrews 3:6-19 to 4:1-11)

7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tried Me by testing Me,
And saw My works for forty years.
10 “Therefore I was angry with this generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they did not know My ways’;
11 As I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.’”



#179
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
We are told that God gives Daniel visions

So a claim then. What is the extrabiblical evidence for this claim, because again the bible is not evidence in and of itself.

That claim a revelation from God 
See there is that troublesome word claim again.
And who do you know who can predict things before they happen with 100% accuracy? 
You still have not demonstrated that anything has been predicted in this fashion but depending on the circumstances a mathematician may be able to predict some things with 100% accuracy before they happen.
God would be able to do this. 
That is your claim. Claims require a burden of proof from the claimant. That There was a prophecy (100% accurate or not) does not necessitate that any god(s) are the source of said prophecy. Even if some god(s) would be capable of such a feat it does not demonstrate that the hypothetical god(s) in question are actually the source of biblical prophecy.

So basically you say there is impressive 100% accurate prophecy in the bible and I say so what. Even if that is true it does not demonstrate any god(s).
#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
They speak of prophecies that come to pass in their lifetime. They testify to the most significantly important events in the history of the world. So, their level of credibility is different from these other sources. 
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

The NT gives an account of when the Messiah came. Luke sets out to give "an orderly account." 
Luke 1:5 "In the days of Herod, king of Judea..." is the time frame. We know when Herod lived. There are writings and artifacts that testify to this. This is the timeframe for the birth of Jesus. From the gospel accounts, we know of how long He lived to within a few years. We know from historical accounts that Jerusalem was surrounded and destroyed in AD70. 

So, these followers that record His existence and all that happened have not yet experienced the fall of the city of the temple in AD 70. They constantly warn others that some horrific judgment is about to take place, within the lifetime of those present. 

Are you doubting the existence of Herod as historical fact, something most reasonable to believe?
Are you doubting the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as historical fact?

If so, then produce your evidence to the contrary.



Please lay down the evidence from history from these other accounts, like the flying spaghetti monster.  
There is no sufficient evidence for these propositions that is the entire point. 
Therefore, they are not like the biblical accounts that as versed in history. 

The evidence is outstanding regarding the biblical accounts 
Ok then present it.
The OT predicts another destruction of the city and temple that has not taken place yet. (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27)
I have laid down small pieces of it, such as no mention of the temple or city as ALREADY being destroyed in any NT writing. 
The temple and city are destroyed in AD 70. 

The Day of the Lord, the Day of God's wrath, and specifically the last days speaks of this coming time of judgment in the OT. 

Isaiah 3:8 For Jerusalem has stumbled and Judah has fallen,
Because their speech and their actions are against the Lord,
To rebel against His glorious presence.
9 The expression of their faces bears witness against them,
And they display their sin like Sodom;
They do not even conceal it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil on themselves.

The Bible is evidence and it contains evidence that what is said is true.
The bible makes claims. That some one wrote a book does not make the contents of that book true.
Those claims are historically verified. They are true to history. 

Prophecy or predictions are reasonable to believe as happening before the events took place, in both testaments.
This is a claim not evidence of any... You know what, I think you get it.

It is a claim that has been evidenced by the historical record we have available to us.