Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
Many of the critiques of Christianity are hyper sceptical. Christ myth theory is an example. They say the prophecies are retro-fitted but there's not really a good case for this.




The burden of proof is on you to show the prophecies are true. That somehow, men could see into the future in a way that defies the laws of physics. The solutions here are that 1) the prophecies are retrofitted, or 2) the laws of physics broke down at this specific point in the past. If you want to show that #2 is truth, that is your burden, because #1 fits with existing knowledge. We don't have to make a good case for #1, because it fits in the web of knowledge. On the other hand, you DO have to make a good case for #2.

I think your first point is fair enough,Interbane. Maybe it's a project I'll work on. It's complicated because within biblical scholarship you have those who postdate writings on the basis that prophecy and the supernatural are impossible. Even with this it's still possible to point to those that clearly could not have been.
I've had some discussion with Robert Tulip on this on his "rational eschatology" thread.

There's a history of ideas involved here so that certain German biblical scholars in the nineteenth century who were rationalist sceptics put forth theories on dating and authorship of biblical books on faulty premises.

Archaeology has subsequently shown their errors. But they were extremely influential in shaping thinking on these things.

There remains disputes on dating old testament books and authorship but I believe the weight of evidence favours the more conservative views on these matters.
I think the arguments need to be weighed here and looked at carefully. If it's postdated it's not prophecy and the opposite if predated.

The laws of physics breaking down is not required. We are talking about God here who is their author, if theism is true as I believe it is.
It's not reasonable that God should be subject to his own laws. He can do what he chooses with those laws. How God could raise a dead man is not something I could explain, but it certainly is possible if God exists.

Flann wrote:There remains disputes on dating old testament books and authorship but I believe the weight of evidence favours the more conservative views on these matters.

But if you use this to support your worldview, as a massive steel I-beam holding the entire worldview structure together... you can't merely believe the weight of evidence supports it. First of all, the weight of evidence here must be heavier than the weight of evidence in favor of the uniformity of the laws of physics. Uniformity isn't certain, of course, but the weight is heavy. Heavier than any scholarship you're able to appeal to.

The second reason is that you have to know the weight of evidence is in favor. If there is unresolved skepticism against your position, the unfortunate truth is that agnosticism is the best you can do. That isn't hyper-skepticism, it's proper method. If you can't know something to be true, then you can't know it to be true. If you can't know it to be true, don't use it to support a worldview. At risk of being nauseously repetitive, that's proper method.

For a naturalist, things like multiverse and universal origins are at the fringes of a worldview - mere belief. They are at the nebulous tip of the epistemological pyramid, supporting nothing above them because they are so sketchy. This might sound backwards to you, since you build your worldview top down (everything dangles from a select few beliefs) - but that's exactly what I mean. The naturalists worldview doesn't "dangle" from a belief like the multiverse. That's backwards. The proper way to build a worldview is from the bottom up - the simplest most certain facts first, using the cement of logic between every layer of evidence. Eventually you get up into the clouds, with ideas like black holes and baby universes. But they are nothing to the worldview. They don't need to be explained, because they support no part of the belief system. They are at the top of the pyramid, not the base. They are an (as yet) unreachable end product. We're too small and insignificant to have the answers to the universe, and it's hubris to think otherwise.

Interbane wrote:

Flann wrote:Many of the critiques of Christianity are hyper sceptical. Christ myth theory is an example. They say the prophecies are retro-fitted but there's not really a good case for this.

The burden of proof is on you to show the prophecies are true. That somehow, men could see into the future in a way that defies the laws of physics. The solutions here are that 1) the prophecies are retrofitted, or 2) the laws of physics broke down at this specific point in the past. If you want to show that #2 is truth, that is your burden, because #1 fits with existing knowledge. We don't have to make a good case for #1, because it fits in the web of knowledge. On the other hand, you DO have to make a good case for #2.

There is also solution 3 – that the prophecies about Christ arose from naturally explicable scientific information available to ancient observers, but this origin was concealed for political reasons.

To my reading this is a compelling, parsimonious and elegant scientific explanation.

Babylonian astronomers could see for hundreds of years beforehand that the spring equinox point would cross into Pisces in about 21 AD, marking a convenient way to theorise a new age and alpha/omega point of messianic incarnation. This astronomical observation has no need for divine foreknowledge, and provides a highly explanatory basis for Biblical prophecy, and for the cultural evolution of the enfleshing of the Christ Myth.

This observation presents a basis for paradigm shift in Christianity from faith to reason, enabling the comprehensive removal of all the obsolete supernatural magical superstitious dross that has surrounded the theory of God.

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
There remains disputes on dating old testament books and authorship but I believe the weight of evidence favours the more conservative views on these matters.




But if you use this to support your worldview, as a massive steel I-beam holding the entire worldview structure together... you can't merely believe the weight of evidence supports it. First of all, the weight of evidence here must be heavier than the weight of evidence in favor of the uniformity of the laws of physics. Uniformity isn't certain, of course, but the weight is heavy. Heavier than any scholarship you're able to appeal to.

The second reason is that you have to know the weight of evidence is in favor. If there is unresolved skepticism against your position, the unfortunate truth is that agnosticism is the best you can do.

You like to set the terms and conditions,Interbane.
For you the uniformity of the laws of physics are already decisive before I even attempt to present a case for prophecy. As I've said before there are several strands of evidence that I consider and prophecy is one of them.
There always have been and will be sceptics. This has often proved self defeating, and I believe it's the case with the 19th century higher critics of the bible and their speculative theories.
I think I'll address this on the "rational eschatology" thread which is focused on these questions, so that's where it will be.

, but this origin was concealed for political reasons.

irrational conspiracy theory paraded as evidence

Flann wrote:For you the uniformity of the laws of physics are already decisive before I even attempt to present a case for prophecy.

Of course an understanding of physics would come first - including whether or not the laws of physics are uniform. Before we can determine the truth of events, we have to know the rules those events operate by... which means a scientific and philosophical understanding of physics. You don't determine how physics operate by whether or not you believe in prophecy! That's top down and obviously incorrect.

All the evidence concerning the uniformity of the laws of physics indicates that they are uniform. It is not certain, as I've already said. But it is supported by a lot of evidence. This isn't just "for me", Flann. Evidence doesn't belong to people. I'm not the one setting the terms. It's for you also, so neglecting to take it into account will inevitably lead your worldview astray.

The scant evidence you have for prophecy is a grain of sand next to the mountain of evidence for the uniformity of the laws of physics. If you choose to believe in prophecy over the uniformity of the laws of physics, then you're abandoning proper method. And we come full circle to an example of where you're being irrational. What else do you use to determine the truth but evidence and method? Why would you select prophecy over uniformity? I know you'll rationalize here, but I'll pick it apart. The evidence truly is in favor of the uniformity of the laws of physics.

Flann wrote:As I've said before there are several strands of evidence that I consider and prophecy is one of them.

There is NO strand of evidence that passes merit. Look through the booktalk archives at all the threads where you present such strands of evidence. You abandon the thread every time. You don't have an answer to the criticisms. Rather than accepting the obvious fact that your evidence doesn't pass muster, you blame the critics as being hyper-skeptical. I'm sure proper method appears to be hyper-skeptical, since you're accustomed to dismissing various logical rules when they countermand your beliefs. You cherry pick which methods to apply. Applying them ALL isn't hyper-skepticism, it's the baseline requirement.

So really, go through the archives here where we've discussed your strands of evidence. None of them hold up to scrutiny. If there is a strand of evidence that hasn't been covered, make a new thread.

Interbane wrote:here is NO strand of evidence that passes merit. Look through the booktalk archives at all the threads where you present such strands of evidence. You abandon the thread every time. You don't have an answer to the criticisms. Rather than accepting the obvious fact that your evidence doesn't pass muster, you blame the critics as being hyper-skeptical. I'm sure proper method appears to be hyper-skeptical, since you're accustomed to dismissing various logical rules when they countermand your beliefs. You cherry pick which methods to apply. Applying them ALL isn't hyper-skepticism, it's the baseline requirement.

But here's the thing Interbane. You believe that biological life self assembled with no proof for this and despite it never having been observed and contrary to Pasteur.
You cannot explain how matter can create immaterial information such as this sentence consists of which is far more than letters on a screen. But you believe mindless matter can perform this feat.
You cannot explain why the laws of nature exist except as a brute fact you have to accept. The universe is another brute fact you can give no good naturalistic explanation for.
I provided Hudson Taylor's account of remarkable answers to prayer. Your response was to put it all down to the highly improbable being possible coincidentally. Yet when you put all the examples together this is nonsense on mathematical probabilities of coincidence achieving these.
In your opinion there is no strand of evidence that passes merit.
I'll present some arguments on prophecy but it won't convince you. Those 19th century rationalist biblical critics were wrong and archaeology shows this, but they persuaded plenty of people that they were the experts to be believed.
I'll give some examples on R.T.'s thread.
He'll reject one on his theory that there was no historical Christ, and you'll reject the other because you won't be satisfied
that the evidence is sufficient on dating, and besides no-one not even God can interfere with those inexplicable laws of nature.

Flann wrote:You believe that biological life self assembled with no proof for this and despite it never having been observed and contrary to Pasteur.

To say biological life self-assembled is not to say "how" it self-assembled. Which is no explanation at all, except to say that the universe is natural. And there is every reason in the world to limit our explanations to that which is natural. You don't build your worldview out of "could be's". You build it out of "what is". The natural world is. The supernatural world "could be". But as a "could be", you place it at the edge of your web of knowledge. Don't use it to support anything else, or you're setting yourself up for failure.

But again, this belief is at the fringes of my worldview. It supports nothing else. It can be replaced with an alternative with no damage(alien transpermia). If you want a supernatural explanation to be considered, you have to prove that the origins of life are naturalistically impossible. Which is itself an impossible task. You're up shit creek without a paddle.

Flann wrote:You cannot explain how matter can create immaterial information such as this sentence consists of which is far more than letters on a screen.

Actually, I can. My ability to explain it isn't the barrier we've run into. The barrier has always been your ability to understand the explanation. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I can't explain it. Just because I can explain it doesn't mean my explanation is correct either, I understand that. But this is all irrelevant. Because I don't need to explain it. It's simply not essential. It's at the top of the pyramid, the fringes of my worldview. It supports nothing else. You're putting the cart before the horse. Only if you dangle your worldview from the top is such an explanation required. I suppose that since you've constructed your worldview in that fashion, doing it another way must appear alien.

You cannot explain why the laws of nature exist except as a brute fact you have to accept.

Correct. Humanity has no clue how the laws of nature have come to be. And no, fabricating an answer doesn't count. That would be a top-down approach.

The universe is another brute fact you can give no good naturalistic explanation for.

Absolutely correct. What's your point? As I said, these things are at the top of the epistemological pyramid. They are not part of the foundation, as you wrongly assume. Your entire approach is backwards Flann. You can't decide "at the beginning" the reasons for the existence of the universe. Such a conclusion is at the tippety top of the epistemological pyramid, after a near endless journey that starts with simple observational building blocks.

In your opinion there is no strand of evidence that passes merit.

It's not just my opinion. What evidence do you have that any of the coincidental parts of Hudson Taylor's story are true? You provide a story and expect it to be believed. I'm not being hyper-skeptical. My lord, think about what you're saying! You want me to believe a story I've only read about over the internet. Give me one good reason. You don't understand how much skepticism is sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff when building a worldview. This much is painfully obvious. You believe Hudson Taylor's story... why?

Interbane wrote:But again, this belief is at the fringes of my worldview. It supports nothing else. It can be replaced with an alternative with no damage(alien transpermia). If you want a supernatural explanation to be considered, you have to prove that the origins of life are naturalistically impossible. Which is itself an impossible task.

Alien transpermia wouldn't solve the problem of the origin of life. How did that life originate? What I'm saying is that from what we know of life here,life comes only from life. The theorists can try to keep simplifying the problem to primitive replicators. None of that alters the fact that life doesn't just emerge however you want to stagger it except from life.
So if you're talking about the observable and repeatable scientifically this is not how life comes about and Pasteur's law stands.

Interbane wrote: Actually, I can. My ability to explain it isn't the barrier we've run into. The barrier has always been your ability to understand the explanation. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I can't explain it. Just because I can explain it doesn't mean my explanation is correct either, I understand that. But this is all irrelevant. Because I don't need to explain it. It's simply not essential.

So you can explain the origin of genetic information but don't think it's necessary to do so?

Interbane wrote:Quote:
The universe is another brute fact you can give no good naturalistic explanation for.




Absolutely correct. What's your point? As I said, these things are at the top of the epistemological pyramid. They are not part of the foundation, as you wrongly assume. Your entire approach is backwards Flann. You can't decide "at the beginning" the reasons for the existence of the universe.

Without a universe you have no matter or life so what's really at the foundation is the cause of the universe and life. Unless you can just shrug and say it's a brute fact. If it is it's a vast and ordered brute fact with brute fact laws.
I say you are not starting at the foundation.

Interbane wrote:It's not just my opinion. What evidence do you have that any of the coincidental parts of Hudson Taylor's story are true? You provide a story and expect it to be believed. I'm not being hyper-skeptical. My lord, think about what you're saying! You want me to believe a story I've only read about over the internet. Give me one good reason. You don't understand how much skepticism is sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff when building a worldview. This much is painfully obvious. You believe Hudson Taylor's story... why?

I gave my example of hyper scepticism as christ myth theory.
Well you could look into his life. There's a lot available. I think that if you do this you will see that he's not in the televangelist mould. It involved a great deal of self sacrifice.He was a pioneer missionary in China which was hazardous in many ways for an Englishman.
I chose him as an example as he made a point of being dependent on God in a very precarious and uncertain situation.
Of course you can disbelieve his account but I think he had integrity and his life showed that.
He's not the only who's prayers are answered but he's a striking example.

I put some prophecy related material on Robert's thread. If you take the view of retrofitting prophecy you're basically in Robert's camp of conspiracy theories.

Someone has to look at old testament prophecies and invent a character to fulfill them including being crucified.
Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic and critical of the bible, in his recent book thinks that the belief in Christ's divinity was early.
They hallucinated his resurrection appearances in his view and then conferred divinity on him is his thesis.

If you consider the gospel accounts at face value,Christ choose twelve apostles to be his witnesses and to accompany him in his public ministry.
They claimed he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him on a number of occasions after this. They preached to the Jews in Jerusalem first and many believed and thus the beginning of the Christian church.

What sceptics say is, we don't believe these witnesses.

Now as I said we know from early Christian accounts that Peter and Paul were executed by Nero and that John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos for his witness to Christ. The early Christians who record this must also be lying about this.

If the apostles fabricated false accounts with retrofitted prophecy why would they be willing to suffer and die knowing they had fabricated a concocted story? They only had to say they didn't believe these things.
The hallucinations thesis doesn't stand up.
Basically everyone is lying and fabricating stories and the people in Jerusalem who were there at the time of Christ's crucifixion believe them, so how could they fabricate his public execution? Besides we have it from Tacitus and Josephus.

Also that there is a personal experiential aspect to Christianity. Maybe your in laws are a pain but that doesn't make it false.

The same principle applies to retrofitting old testament prophecy. It's dishonest. Robert has his conspiracy theories and basically everyone is lying for one nefarious reason or another.
If you read a book like Isaiah you are struck by it's moral not mention literary quality.
You may need to check out Robert's theories if you really want to take that route of explaining fulfilled prophecies as retrofitted by dishonest writers.

Flann wrote:Alien transpermia wouldn't solve the problem of the origin of life. How did that life originate? What I'm saying is that from what we know of life here,life comes only from life. The theorists can try to keep simplifying the problem to primitive replicators. None of that alters the fact that life doesn't just emerge however you want to stagger it except from life.
So if you're talking about the observable and repeatable scientifically this is not how life comes about and Pasteur's law stands.

Flann, it doesn't matter. The origins of life have no bearing on my worldview. It isn't a "problem". If I have absolutely no idea how life originated, nothing changes. I don't "have" to explain life. The answer here - the explanation - is at the fringes of my worldview. It's in nebulous territory, uncertain territory. For the tenth time, you don't start at the fringes when building a worldview.

You're missing the forest for the trees. But if we need to discuss the trees - Pasteur said nothing about the impossibility of life spontaneously generating. What he showed is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form. Which isn't what I believe anyway.

So you can explain the origin of genetic information but don't think it's necessary to do so?

All the genetic information you see today arose through evolution. It's one of the most well explained phenomenon on our planet. If you're referring to what you think of as the "seed" that all life sprang from, then I'd ask why you think it's necessary. Necessary for what?

Of course you can disbelieve his account but I think he had integrity and his life showed that.

Disbelieve his account? What else would I do with it? The only access I've had to his account is a propagandist article on the internet. Flann, we're talking about a piece of information that serves as one of the cornerstones of your entire worldview. You're out of your mind if you think this story suffices. The cornerstone of a worldview... from an internet story.

You may need to check out Robert's theories if you really want to take that route of explaining fulfilled prophecies as retrofitted by dishonest writers.

No, I don't need to check it out. Prophecy is at the fringes of my worldview also, along with many other things(saying nothing about whether or not I believe them to be true). Flann, you're missing what I'm saying in all these posts. You don't lay the foundation of your worldview with things which are this uncertain. The foundation is what you are forced to ultimately appeal to when defending your worldview. It has to be as true as possible - and as simple as possible. Gravity will pull you to the Earth. A debate over the dating of ancient documents is so far removed from this that I wonder if you've even been reading what I've written.