@kellyjay saidA touch on what I owe on evidence for evidence outside of the Bible.
If he brings up something you would like to discuss great if not no worries.
These are not hours long, but if you are interested.
If not no worries, I still have to do the research on evidence.
These are just quick talks.
These were all members of RVIM, one has passed away. Just trying to be open, I like all of these speakers.
@avalanchethecat saidWhat is disputed isn't that we exist, which is nearly accepted by the vast majority of people, not all. Looking at the requirements in play, seeing how broad the number of things that could have gone wrong, and finding it isn't, the question is, can all of the various requirements be met by anything other than a fine tuner explaining the fine-tuning of the universe.
Try this simple thought experiment. Imagine what the universe would be like if any of those constants were different.
The odds that the universe is such that we may exist is 100%. Where's your evidence that it's even possible for our universe to be otherwise?
Lol @ 'spells trouble'. Uh oh...
@avalanchethecat saidGetting ready to start putting something together for you.
Authorship is by no means as certain as you and Sonship seem to be suggesting. What non-scriptural evidence are you aware of which supports the miraculous events detailed in the Gospels?
@kellyjay saidA 'fine tuner' could be implied if (a) it is possible that the universal constants could be different, and (b) there is and has only ever been a single universe. Without being able to confirm these conditions, there really is no logical reason to be at all surprised at the 'fine-tuning' of our universe.
What is disputed isn't that we exist, which is nearly accepted by the vast majority of people, not all. Looking at the requirements in play, seeing how broad the number of things that could have gone wrong, and finding it isn't, the question is, can all of the various requirements be met by anything other than a fine tuner explaining the fine-tuning of the universe.
@avalanchethecat saidSuggesting universal constants have to be because we are here is simply saying we are here, and so are the constants, the why and how left ignored and unanswered. Can you give me a reason things are tuned as they are? If it is by necessity, then identify the necessary elements that demand things are the way they are.
A 'fine tuner' could be implied if (a) it is possible that the universal constants could be different, and (b) there is and has only ever been a single universe. Without being able to confirm these conditions, there really is no logical reason to be at all surprised at the 'fine-tuning' of our universe.
@avalanchethecat said<<and (b) there is and has only ever been a single universe. Without being able to confirm these conditions,>>
A 'fine tuner' could be implied if (a) it is possible that the universal constants could be different, and (b) there is and has only ever been a single universe. Without being able to confirm these conditions, there really is no logical reason to be at all surprised at the 'fine-tuning' of our universe.
So you’re proposing that another universe may exist or may have existed and it’s up to Kelly Jay to prove it doesn’t or hasn’t. You’re asking him to prove a negative?
I propose rainbow-colored hippopotamuses existed in the 1600s. Prove they didn’t!
@kellyjay saidIt seems to me that the most likely reasons the constants are as they are is either because they can only be as they are or because there either are or have been countless other universes where they were different and consequently where we are not.
Suggesting universal constants have to be because we are here is simply saying we are here, and so are the constants, the why and how left ignored and unanswered. Can you give me a reason things are tuned as they are? If it is by necessity, then identify the necessary elements that demand things are the way they are.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidThe constants in the universe are finely tuned to make something like life work; if they were not done deliberately, the only other explanation would be that the universe was the product of non-deliberate forces acting without reason or intent.
It seems to me that the most likely reasons the constants are as they are is either because they can only be as they are or because there either are or have been countless other universes where they were different and consequently where we are not.
I think the multiverse theory is just unprovable, and grasping at straws, reaching for something that leads to a severe amount of other unanswerable questions with no reason to even go there outside of avoiding the obvious questions concerning this one. Countless other universes don't solve the questions about this one unless you want to explain how they too were made by what could produce finely tuned universes. That then begs the additional question of what could produce a finely tuned universe producer machine or whatever you want to call it, out of nothing.
With a stack of questions about the universe, then the informational driven properties we see written in DNA/RNA in life and its specified functional complexities mindlessness doesn't seem to be a valid answer to the host of questions we have around us for either the universe or life let alone both.
@kellyjay saidThe multiverse theory may be unproven, but I don't agree that it's unprovable. Your proposed alternative of a divinely created universe, on the other hand, is by definition unprovable. Referring to it as 'grasping at straws' (apart from being a rather rude way of dismissing a very elegant scientific and mathematical concept which has not been falsified since it's conception) ignores the fact that this theory was orignally conceived to explain real experimental data. Your alternative, on the other hand, was invented by people to explain things they had no way of investigating.
The constants in the universe are finely tuned to make something like life work; if they were not done deliberately, the only other explanation would be that the universe was the product of non-deliberate forces acting without reason or intent.
I think the multiverse theory is just unprovable, and grasping at straws, reaching for something that leads to a severe amount o ...[text shortened]... id answer to the host of questions we have around us for either the universe or life let alone both.
The arguments about life being 'too complicated' to have arisen naturally is arguing from incredulity. I have no problem accepting that such fabulous complexity may have arisen as a consequence of non-deliberate forces acting without reason or intent.
Ultimately, you simply prefer to believe in a universe with meaning endowed by a creator, therefore any arguments which provide weight counter to that will seem weaker to you. Since I currently have no belief in a god or gods, arguments providing weight counter to this view seem weaker to me.
I think that were one to investigate these questions evidentially, one would be obliged to largely exclude scripture of all kinds. Since there is simply no evidence outside scripture for the existence of a god or gods, it seems to me that one would be compelled to suspect a natural 'creation' given the evidence currently available. That said, the only really reasonable answer would be "I don't know".
@sonship
prejudice
noun [ C or U ]
uk
/ˈpredʒ.ə.dɪs/ us
/ˈpredʒ.ə.dɪs/
an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidYou cannot say there is no evidence for God or gods outside of the scriptures since the entirety of all there is, is evidence. If this were a trial, then both sides would be submitting evidence. Both sides have to respond to their counterparts' points when they discuss how both their own evidence and the counterpart's evidence are being presented. To do anything else is simply avoid by DEFINITION ONLY the case being made, which is simply, in my opinion, I disagree, so it isn't so.
The multiverse theory may be unproven, but I don't agree that it's unprovable. Your proposed alternative of a divinely created universe, on the other hand, is by definition unprovable. Referring to it as 'grasping at straws' (apart from being a rather rude way of dismissing a very elegant scientific and mathematical concept which has not been falsified since it's conc ...[text shortened]... evidence currently available. That said, the only really reasonable answer would be "I don't know".
A naturalist theology, one void of scripture, is still something I think "I don't know" doesn't really work because we do know what generates instructions to perform complex tasks, we do know what writes code to perform complex tasks, we do know these things are not products from a mindless indifferent process; instead they are always a product of a mind, and this agency (mind) is not in competition with all of the natural explanations either. To borrow from Dr. Lennox to explain a motor talking about thermodynamics, physics, and such or talking about Henry Ford are both correct answers.
With competing hypotheses looking for the best explanation, we must ask elementary and fundamental questions. Can this do that, is it up for the job or is it inadequate, in which case we need to find something else. Even if there were no scriptures in the mix, that would not change, and the inadequacy of a natural explanation alone cannot get us where we are.
Family is calling; I have to stop here; I hope you have a good Christmas.
@kellyjay saidA lot of words but no substance. The sticking point here is that you are insisting that scripture has equal evidentiary weight to, well, everything else. It simply isn't so, regardless of how strongly you believe. In your hypothetical trial, it would be regarded as heresay, and the judge would caution the jurors that should regard it with suspicion. I note you persist in the fallacious argument from incredulity, and yet you advocate an impossibly, infinitely more complex alternative.
You cannot say there is no evidence for God or gods outside of the scriptures since the entirety of all there is, is evidence. If this were a trial, then both sides would be submitting evidence. Both sides have to respond to their counterparts' points when they discuss how both their own evidence and the counterpart's evidence are being presented. To do anything else is simp ...[text shortened]... ot get us where we are.
Family is calling; I have to stop here; I hope you have a good Christmas.
Yes, merry festives one and all. Except that Romans1009 guy... Nah, not really.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat said<<A lot of words but no substance. The sticking point here is that you are insisting that scripture has equal evidentiary weight to, well, everything else. It simply isn't so, regardless of how strongly you believe.>>
A lot of words but no substance. The sticking point here is that you are insisting that scripture has equal evidentiary weight to, well, everything else. It simply isn't so, regardless of how strongly you believe. In your hypothetical trial, it would be regarded as heresay, and the judge would caution the jurors that should regard it with suspicion. I note you persist ...[text shortened]... lex alternative.
Yes, merry festives one and all. Except that Romans1009 guy... Nah, not really.
Says who?
Have you forgotten the three experts in evaluating evidence, two of whom were atheists, who investigated the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and concluded the Resurrection happened?
<<In your hypothetical trial, it would be regarded as heresay, and the judge would caution the jurors that should regard it with suspicion.>>
First of all, hearsay evidence isn’t permitted in a trial. Second, the Apostle John and Apostle Paul were eyewitnesses to what they wrote.
No offense but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Do you know more about evidence than these people?
<<Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts.
He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.
“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:
“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis.
To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence.
Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
@avalanchethecat saidExactly what did I say that had anything to do with scripture in my last? If all you are going to do is dismiss anything I say because I accept scripture than it isn’t logic that you are basing this on.
A lot of words but no substance. The sticking point here is that you are insisting that scripture has equal evidentiary weight to, well, everything else. It simply isn't so, regardless of how strongly you believe. In your hypothetical trial, it would be regarded as heresay, and the judge would caution the jurors that should regard it with suspicion. I note you persist ...[text shortened]... lex alternative.
Yes, merry festives one and all. Except that Romans1009 guy... Nah, not really.