"SoM" is wrong again!!! William Lane Craig debunks the FSM schoolboy objection

[End Bringer]

They are disputed by people without credible qualifications with biased reasons to disbelieve the claims.

According to you. They would say you have been spoon-fed by The Man, and are brainwashed into conformity.

You are right on this point. One could take the alternative hypothesis that all of academia is corrupt. ;).

In this case, you might not believe anything.

Welcome to the end result of so-called skeptics.

All these documents were illegal documents in the position of only members of the Christian religion for the first few hundred years. There was nobody around to verify whether they were true or false.

Ha! The fact that the testimony was spreading around  was being met with persecution is what verifies their authenticity. Someone claims thousands of people in a particular city met a single figure in the very city being addressed, you think no one would catch on that they did not in fact meet such a figure?

Not really.  Mark and John are apparently different accounts. We apparently can't date them earlier than Paul but it depends who you ask. The original documents have been destroyed.

Mark and Luke are both derived from Mark and a common unknown source called Q.

In other words disputed like the Holocaust. Only difference being you find the excuses far fetched from Nazis, but suddenly willing to listen when used by critics of the Bible.

Not really. If you read theological sources, you still have to admit, that the bible is based on some books that were underground and illegal for a rather long period of time.

Gee, a belief in persecution, being dubbed illegal. I'm shocked! Especially when the testimony wasn't so much disputed by those in power, but those advocating it were told to be quiet. Think that's not indicative?

Not at all. The objections one has in the bible are perfectly reasonable; i.e., if you know how the bible was constructed and that the Christian church was persectured for the first 200 years ... its quite different from all the data we have on world war one.

And so are the objections to the Holocaust perfectly reasonable to those who are already biased against it. Of course you call upon 'illegality' when it actually lends more credibility. Obviously you can't deny that Christianity was being met with opposition if you are claiming it was being dubbed illegal. So your claims that the testimonies of the first Christians weren't met with any scrutiny is contradicting.

But as far as my statement about "disproving yourself" goes, it was in refrence to your objection that something taken on faith can't be verified.

Critics have interpreted some statments of the bible as claiming the world was flat ... (The bible refers to the 4 corners of the earth, ...)

So you contradict yourself again about what's being said doesn't matter.

This is highly arguable. You have the geneology of Christ being different between accounts, you have different perspectives on John the baptist.

Mark influenced Mathew and Luke. (google synoptic gospels).

All perfectly explained when one takes things in context. But that's not the point. You simply admit what is actually said does indeed matter.

Most of those debating it are not qualified to do so; i.e., they are not educated in science and don't know what they are talking about.

IOW a scientist is someone who accepts in evolution. No True Scottsman if ever there was one.

Shifting views? Well, when the evidence suggests a finding is wrong, science corrects itself.

Not really. And certainly not when it comes to evolution as it's become so malleable one could interpret the evidence any way he wants to fit one's preconceptions.

I'm unsure whether the brain developed from an ameoba. Its not question begging as I wasn't using it to prove evolution.

A statment made regarding evolution as true, is not being used to indicate evolution is true? Ha!

If you remember the OP this topic is ultimately about ID vs evolution and the verifiability of God. That you don't find arguements from design compelling because you buy whole-sale into macroevolution and consistently refer to it as being true, is indeed question begging and circular logic.

[jetson]

I see where you were going, but The Holocaust was witnessed and documented in my lifetime, by people who were a part of it.  Even though my lifetime was after the event, we know that there exists tons of direct testimony and eyewitness accounts from people on both sides of the event - we even have much of it on film.  Most of this happened either during the event, or immediately after the war.

If you admit your lifetime was after the event, then it WASN'T witnessed and documented in your lifetime. But even if it was, if you didn't witness it yourself, even in your lifetime, you're still taking the word of others on faith and faith that "documentation" wasn't fabbrished. With the way visual effects have progressed for TV seeing an alien craft on the news, can be met with skepticism when seeing shows like V on ABC. OF course you don't dispute it, because you don't have a bias towards the Holocaust. When it comes to the Bible....

If you can show that this is also true of stories from The Bible, I will stand corrected.

We have four eye-witness accounts of an event where your lifetime was after. Each witness never recanting in the face of persecution, torture, and death. Each sighting multiple other witnesses which never recanted either. So to deny it is a blatant inconsistency on your part.

I never said I denied anything.  You making a statement that you believe to be true is not evidence.  Do you have any evidence to support your assertion regarding eyewitnesses to Biblical stories?  Do you realize how many historians, archaeologists, theologians, paleontologists, and others would be highly interested in factual support of eyewitness accounts to Biblical events?  I'm willing to research it myself if you point me to anything that supports your assertion.

I can see you have accepted that eye-witness accounts are acceptable, even if they were written by someone else.  Do you have any idea how many eyewitness accounts of The Holocaust there are?  These eyewitnesses are documented and they each accurately corroborate each other, along with film, audio, and oral recitations of the events.  Are you going to compare the hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony, the hours of interviews and film evidence that clearly denote the activities that occurred in The Holocaust, to what you read in a single book, whose authorship is largely unknown?

[End Bringer]

Again you Fail. If the stories of the gospels are from an oral tradition (ie not first-hand testimonies) then they are not testimonies but merely stories. Tales. Fables.

In other words oral testimonies the same way one gets on a stand, speaks to what they saw/know, and someone records it for later refrence. According to you, the whole judicial system failed before you came along with your great insight. Heh.

Do you even know who wrote the gospels, and where they got their information?

I'm happy to sight the authors are on the titles of the testimonies. But again it ultimately doesn't matter, as is so clearly shown by your inability to grasp recording techniques.

[jill]

Again you Fail. If the stories of the gospels are from an oral tradition (ie not first-hand testimonies) then they are not testimonies but merely stories. Tales. Fables.

In other words oral testimonies the same way one gets on a stand, speaks to what they saw/know, and someone records it for later refrence. According to you, the whole judicial system failed before you came along with your great insight. Heh.

When I asked you if you were suggesting that the eye-witness gave testimony to someone first hand and THAT person is the person who wrote the gospel - you asked "what would be the significance of either"

Just answer that question.  Do you believe the person who WROTE the gospel sat in the same room and took dictation from the eye witness?

[End Bringer]

I never said I denied anything.  You making a statement that you believe to be true is not evidence.  Do you have any evidence to support your assertion regarding eyewitnesses to Biblical stories?  Do you realize how many historians, archaeologists, theologians, paleontologists, and others would be highly interested in factual support of eyewitness accounts to Biblical events?  I'm willing to research it myself if you point me to anything that supports your assertion.

You deny them. That's not even a matter of discussion as you are so clearly set against Christianity, and have obviously been for as long as I've talked to you. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest. And the evidence can be found in any store selling the Bible. Events are claimed to be witnessed as true. One way or another you have to call them liars if you believe it isn't true.

I can see you have accepted that eye-witness accounts are acceptable, even if they were written by someone else.  Do you have any idea how many eyewitness accounts of The Holocaust there are?  These eyewitnesses are documented and they each accurately corroborate each other, along with film, audio, and oral recitations of the events.  Are you going to compare the hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony, the hours of interviews and film evidence that clearly denote the activities that occurred in The Holocaust, to what you read in a single book, whose authorship is largely unknown?

Yep. Because ultimately so long as there isn't just one single eye-witness, an event can be believed as true (and even can be reasonably believed with a single source, if that source has a reputation for being reliable). The fact that we have 4 written testimonies would be enough, but so often there are events that have been asserted where hundreds if not thousands witness the event as well. And seeing how it wasn't disproven by those working against Christianity at the time, I'd say we can trust that those witnesses did in fact exist as well, and the event/s actually happened.

[End Bringer]

When I asked you if you were suggesting that the eye-witness gave testimony to someone first hand and THAT person is the person who wrote the gospel - you asked "what would be the significance of either"

Just answer that question.  Do you believe the person who WROTE the gospel sat in the same room and took dictation from the eye witness?

I honestly see no reason to believe the Gospels weren't written by the eye-wintesses themselves. But again I ask, what would it matter if Mark or Matthew weren't specificly the one's who took ink to paper with the Gospels we know today. They were still alive for a while and their testimony would have spread to enough, that if anyone was making a pure fabrication as you and Luke are so eager to assert it would have never survived without being caught.

In any case the Gospels are still eye-witness testimony regardless. And the real reason you want to pursue the criticism of who wrote what, is because you have no proof to call those claiming to have witnessed what they witnessed liars.

[jetson]

You deny them. That's not even a matter of discussion as you are so clearly set against Christianity, and have obviously been for as long as I've talked to you. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest. And the evidence can be found in any store selling the Bible. Events are claimed to be witnessed as true. One way or another you have to call them liars if you believe it isn't true.

I am looking at the academic view of The Bible and it's stories.  Have you ever done that?  What do you know about who the real authors were, who they knew, and why they wrote their particular stories?  Have you done any research into the history and authenticity of The Bible?  I'm wondering if you would flatly deny any evidence that casts doubt on authorship, or real knowledge of who Jesus was?

Yep. Because ultimately so long as there isn't just one single eye-witness, an event can be believed as true (and even can be reasonably believed with a single source, if that source has a reputation for being reliable). The fact that we have 4 written testimonies would be enough, but so often there are events that have been asserted where hundreds if not thousands witness the event as well. And seeing how it wasn't disproven by those working against Christianity at the time, I'd say we can trust that those witnesses did in fact exist as well, and the event/s actually happened.

What makes you think that The Bible has a reputation for being reliable?  What external source do you have, that we can all review, that supports a reliable Bible?  Do you agree that The Bible is a series of books put together over decades?  If so, would you agree that the earliest Christians never knew or read The Bible that we have today?

[End Bringer]

I am looking at the academic view of The Bible and it's stories.  Have you ever done that?  What do you know about who the real authors were, who they knew, and why they wrote their particular stories?  Have you done any research into the history and authenticity of The Bible?  I'm wondering if you would flatly deny any evidence that casts doubt on authorship, or real knowledge of who Jesus was?

Oh no you're not. You frankly have no credibility whatsoever to view matters of history or to look at things objectively. And as pointed out with ricky, the only difference between your denial of the Bible and the Holocaust is that you aren't anti-semitic.

What makes you think that The Bible has a reputation for being reliable?  What external source do you have, that we can all review, that supports a reliable Bible?  Do you agree that The Bible is a series of books put together over decades?  If so, would you agree that the earliest Christians never knew or read The Bible that we have today?

Problably because it was faced with intense persecution during it's inception (at least as far as accounts of Christ were concerned), yet was never recanted. And your line of questioning just shows your ignorance on the matter, as it's simply the Gospels under discussion. The rest of the Bible doesn't play into this. As is your appeal to an "external" source, useless because being a compilation Matthew IS an External source to Mark, Luke, and John as is each to the other.

[Drauthlin]

Problably because it was faced with intense persecution during it's inception (at least as far as accounts of Christ were concerned), yet was never recanted.

Joseph Smith was the same way with the Book of Mormon. I do believe he was killed for it. Does that make it a reliable source?

[hypsell]

There are more and better eyewitnesses to UFO encounters than to biblical stories,and do you belive the space aliens are here.I'd think not.

[Waldo]

There are extra biblical accounts out there we just have to find them.  Nathan, Gad and Jasher come to mind.

[hypsell]

Don't forget the great green arkelseizure!At least that belief is compatible with an expanding universe.

[End Bringer]

Joseph Smith was the same way with the Book of Mormon. I do believe he was killed for it. Does that make it a reliable source?

Joseph Smith was the only one to supposedly witness the asserted event. So was Mohammed. Contrast that with Christ who had roughly twelve people around him for a few years, as well as several very public demonstrations with sometimes thousands of witnesses.

[jetson]

Oh no you're not. You frankly have no credibility whatsoever to view matters of history or to look at things objectively. And as pointed out with ricky, the only difference between your denial of the Bible and the Holocaust is that you aren't anti-semitic.

This is unfortunate, but not unexpected.  This is the level of discourse that I was hoping to change with my open apology to EB, which I think went unanswered by EB?  Instead, EB has chosen to attack and ridicule. 

 

[End Bringer]

This is unfortunate, but not unexpected.  This is the level of discourse that I was hoping to change with my open apology to EB, which I think went unanswered by EB?  Instead, EB has chosen to attack and ridicule. 

An open apology? That's news to me.

[Scrabble Hamster]

When I asked you if you were suggesting that the eye-witness gave testimony to someone first hand and THAT person is the person who wrote the gospel - you asked "what would be the significance of either"

Just answer that question.  Do you believe the person who WROTE the gospel sat in the same room and took dictation from the eye witness?

I honestly see no reason to believe the Gospels weren't written by the eye-wintesses themselves. But again I ask, what would it matter if Mark or Matthew weren't specificly the one's who took ink to paper with the Gospels we know today. They were still alive for a while and their testimony would have spread to enough, that if anyone was making a pure fabrication as you and Luke are so eager to assert it would have never survived without being caught.

In any case the Gospels are still eye-witness testimony regardless. And the real reason you want to pursue the criticism of who wrote what, is because you have no proof to call those claiming to have witnessed what they witnessed liars.

Hi End Bringer. Regarding the bolded, was my answer no good?  

The gospels are not eye-witness testimonies regardless of who wrote them. They're only eye-witness testimonies if they were written by the person who observed the events. I don't believe any of the gospels claim to have been eye-witness accounts, nor do they claim to be written by the names that were later attributed to them. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[rickymooston]

SH +1

There are extra biblical accounts out there we just have to find them.  Nathan, Gad and Jasher come to mind.

Oh?

[Drauthlin]

Joseph Smith was the same way with the Book of Mormon. I do believe he was killed for it. Does that make it a reliable source?

Joseph Smith was the only one to supposedly witness the asserted event. So was Mohammed. Contrast that with Christ who had roughly twelve people around him for a few years, as well as several very public demonstrations with sometimes thousands of witnesses.

This isn't quite correct.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, his brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seeen [sic] the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shewn unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvellous [sic] in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Those are the 3 witnesses - all of whom died while still members of an LDS group (after Joseph's death, splinter groups formed - some followed Brigham, others Emma/Joseph's son, etc). They did not recant.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Those are the 8 witnesses, none of whom recanted either.


Please note, I think they're all full of BS, but I'm not sure what you mean about Christ having witnesses and Joseph Smith having only himself. In multiple religions, large groups of people have been deceived into thinking/believing/seeing something that was not real. Look at Jonestown or Heave's Gate - people willing to die and/or kill family members for their beliefs in these people.

[End Bringer]

Hi End Bringer. Regarding the bolded, was my answer no good?  

I'm essentially discussing with 4 different people. You'll understand if I may have missed your post.

The gospels are not eye-witness testimonies regardless of who wrote them. They're only eye-witness testimonies if they were written by the person who observed the events. I don't believe any of the gospels claim to have been eye-witness accounts, nor do they claim to be written by the names that were later attributed to them. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. As pointed out so clearly to Luke, asserting that eye-witness testimony is only eye-wintess testimony if the said eye-witness records it him/her-self  is meaningless. We have examples where testimony is not being written by the person giving the account in the world today. The subsequent Gospels were largely named as they were because it was understood who wrote the testimony down or who the ultimate source of the testimony was (and Luke even explicitly gives an introduction referring to other eye-witness accounts and self-investigation). So your simple assertions fall flat.

[End Bringer]

Those are the 3 witnesses - all of whom died while still members of an LDS group (after Joseph's death, splinter groups formed - some followed Brigham, others Emma/Joseph's son, etc). They did not recant.

Now you're getting somewhere. Unfortunately it still amounts to single testimony. He claims several witnessess, but none can/have corroborated it (nor faced the level of persecution and pressure early Christians did) and the tablets/plates are, of course, no more. So it still amounts to bottlenecking from the claims of a single man. And this doesn't even address the fact that Christ was very public in his teachings and demonstrations.

And you'll note of the two cases of Mormonism and Islam, the insistence is that a previous message from a supernatural entity had become corrupted and so direct intervention was required. Both Mormons and Muslims, but Muslims in particular, emphasize the purity of their text as evidence for the legitimacy of their worldview, but this begs the question as to how God could preserve the BoM and the Koran but not the OT/NT.  And while we're at it note that Christians never said that the OT was flawed.  They argued that the OT spoke truly of something which was fullfilled.  They did not set aside the OT as corrupted, but adopted as trustworthy and completed.

Please note, I think they're all full of BS, but I'm not sure what you mean about Christ having witnesses and Joseph Smith having only himself. In multiple religions, large groups of people have been deceived into thinking/believing/seeing something that was not real. Look at Jonestown or Heave's Gate - people willing to die and/or kill family members for their beliefs in these people.

I mean all subsequent claims are from Joseph Smith. Matthew has the testimony of Mark, Luke, and John to back him up. In addition, I doubt Joseph or any claimed witnessess faced the level of persecution/pressure early Christians did. Sadly the measure of the individuals can not be taken.

Also it's question begging that people did not see what they claim to see. I don't use the fact all testimony boils down to Joseph Smith as prima facia evidence that his claim is false. I can test the BoM in other ways for that. I simply note it's a big clue. The courage that such world views had to formulate their claims was not all that courageous. They are specifically set up so as to be, in principle, unfalsifiable. Which is fundamentally different to how Christianity was established with so much of the claimed events being in public and for a longer period of time.

[hypsell]

Huh??

[Scrabble Hamster]

Hi End Bringer. Regarding the bolded, was my answer no good? 

I'm essentially discussing with 4 different people. You'll understand if I may have missed your post.

The gospels are not eye-witness testimonies regardless of who wrote them. They're only eye-witness testimonies if they were written by the person who observed the events. I don't believe any of the gospels claim to have been eye-witness accounts, nor do they claim to be written by the names that were later attributed to them. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. As pointed out so clearly to Luke, asserting that eye-witness testimony is only eye-wintess testimony if the said eye-witness records it him/her-self  is meaningless. We have examples where testimony is not being written by the person giving the account in the world today. The subsequent Gospels were largely named as they were because it was understood who wrote the testimony down or who the ultimate source of the testimony was (and Luke even explicitly gives an introduction referring to other eye-witness accounts and self-investigation). So your simple assertions fall flat.

The reason you think it's meaningless is because you're misusing the word "eye-witness". It doesn't apply to just anyone who claims to have knowledge about something. An eye-witness is someone who actually observed the event in question. The person who observed an event is generally considered a more reliable source than someone who heard about the event from someone else. You do understand this, correct? If you experience something and tell me about it, and then I try to tell someone else about it, it's probably not going to be as accurate as it would be if you had told them yourself.

Here's what I posted before since you missed it:

The significance is that we may be dealing with first-hand, second-hand, or third-hand knowledge depending on who wrote the gospel.

Whether it was someone who observed it (first-hand), someone who knew the person who observed it and got their information directly from them (second-hand), or someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who may or may not have been the person who observed it (third-hand) makes a big difference. Obviously, first-hand knowledge is a lot more reliable than a story that's being heard third-hand, which is more likely the case with your gospels.

Also, I think you may be confusing eye-witness with witness. An eye-witness is someone with first-hand knowledge-- the person who actually observed the event. A witness (without the eye) can be someone who didn't actually observe the event.

I suspect you have a stronger grasp of these concepts when it comes to things non-religious.

Did you ever play the game telephone as a child? It's the game where one kid whispers something to another kid, who in turn whispers it to another, and so on until it's gone through quite a few kids. Then at the very end you get to hear how distorted the original message got as it passed from one person to the another.

We learn these lessons early. We all know it's best to get the information from the source. In the case of your gospels, you really don't know how close to the source you are. You want to believe it's an eye-witness account, despite the fact that the authors weren't even trying to make you think that they were. Of course, even if they did claim to have actually seen the events with their own eyes, that wouldn't necessarily make them true. That's why it's important to have other accounts that corroborate the story. And the more unlikely the story, the more independent accounts you should require before you accept it as truth.

When it comes to a man being dead for several days and then coming back to life... 4 accounts... that's just not going to cut it.

[jetson]

This is unfortunate, but not unexpected.  This is the level of discourse that I was hoping to change with my open apology to EB, which I think went unanswered by EB?  Instead, EB has chosen to attack and ridicule. 

An open apology? That's news to me.

From Feb 22:
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,41281.msg231545.html#msg231545

[Captain Luke]

In other words oral testimonies the same way one gets on a stand, speaks to what they saw/know, and someone records it for later refrence. According to you, the whole judicial system failed before you came along with your great insight. Heh.

The judicial system relies on "my" great insight. You fail again.

I'm happy to sight the authors are on the titles of the testimonies. But again it ultimately doesn't matter, as is so clearly shown by your inability to grasp recording techniques.

So you believe that the gospels are eponymous. That's fine, but who were M,M,L&J? Where they there at the time of Jesus? Did they write down their memories later?

[rickymooston]

End Bringer what is your feeling about the synoptic problem. Based on your posts, you don't seem to know basic theology about how the bible was constructed. You can get this information from Christian sources.

The following analysis comes from theologians you actually studied the original documents that are still available. I was lazy and took the wikipedia versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Exact wording was copied between these 3 gospels.

Three theories:
1) Mark was used to write Mathew. Mathew was used to write Luke.
2) Mark was independently used to write Mathew and Luke.
3) Mark and another lost document were used to write Mathew and Luke independently.



<--- this compares the original greek.