1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat a really odd set of questions. What relevance do any of them have to the question of the existence of invisible unicorns?
answering these questions might be a start in convincing me of their existance.
Would you use the same set of questions if the entities in question were:
a. Magnetism.
b. a planet beyond pluto.
c. flying toasters.
d. A man named George who lives down stairs.
If not, then why do they apply to invisible unicorns?
And besides, I don't believe you in the slightest. I could answer all those questions and you still wouldn't be any closer to believing in their existence. Or would you? Would you seriously delude yourself into believing in invisible unicorns simply because they offered you a better afterlife? Maybe you would.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf he were to break the laws of physics in front of scientists repeatedly with cameras and lots of witnesses, it would go a long way.
If you're not sure what evidence would be sufficient, then how can you claim that the evidence you've seen hasn't been good enough? There should be some criteria by which the evidence is assessed, right? What would that be in your case?
Originally posted by PenguinExcellent! Quite a gem.
I think I have posted this before but it seems like a good time to do it again.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
It is a list of the kind of evidence that would be sufficient to persuade that particular atheist of the truth of a religion (and therefore the existance of that religion's particular deity or dieties.
I think it is pretty comprehensive myself.
--- Penguin.
2 edits
Originally posted by PenguinGreat link, thanks!
I think I have posted this before but it seems like a good time to do it again.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
It is a list of the kind of evidence that would be sufficient to persuade that particular atheist of the truth of a religion (and therefore the existance of that religion's particular deity or dieties.
I think it is pretty comprehensive myself.
--- Penguin.
There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity. The piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics, but it is nevertheless compelling. Bear with me.
When Jesus was flogged he was probably lashed at least thirty-nine times with a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls and pieces of sharp bone woven into them, which was the Roman custom. This process would shred the skin of the back, buttocks, and the back of the legs so severely that sometimes the skeleton of the condemned person would be exposed, causing significant blood loss. The loss of blood would in turn cause the person to go into hypovolemic shock. Hypovolemic shock causes kidney failure, among other things, as the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain dwindling blood volume, which then causes pericardial effusion, i.e., the dangerous build up of water around the heart. Pericardial effusion further increases the probability of congestive heart failure already associated with a sustained rapid heart rate (due, in this case, to hypovolemic shock), and congestive heart failure, which Jesus probably died from, causes pleural effusion, i.e., the dangerous build up of water around the lungs. In short, the blood loss associated with the flogging Jesus received at the hands of the Roman soldiers would have caused Jesus to go into hypovolemic shock, and the hypovolemic shock would have caused dangerous levels of water to build up around his heart (pericardial effusion) and lungs (pleural effusion).
Since the Jews didn't want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, the Roman soldiers, in order to hasten the crucifixions, proceeded to break the legs of the condemned so that they could no longer elevate themselves (the individual had to elevate themselves in order to breath). However, they found Jesus was already dead. One of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear. It was recorded that out of the wound came "a sudden flow of blood and water" (John 19:34). This is consistent with what modern medicine would expect to have happened, yet John had no such knowledge.
IMO, this lends a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion. Yeah, it's not the theory of relativity plainly presented in scripture thousands of years before Einstein, but neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual.
6 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhile I'm sure you believe that this constitutes compelling evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time ", what you seem to have failed to have even considered is that fact that no knowledge of science or medicine, modern or otherwise, would have been required to make such an observation. Only someone with a pretty low level of discernment would have failed to recognize this, yet no doubt you'll continue to have the utmost confidence in your ability to reason despite yet more evidence to the contrary.
Great link, thanks!
There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity. The piece of evidence I want t ears before Einstein, but neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual.
As I said in the "Of Christians, Ego and Delusion" thread:
Many Christians hold beliefs that are decidedly ego affirming such as: assurance of eternal life; assurance of love and acceptance from God; assurance that one can continue to commit sin and not lose the assurances above; etc. It’s not difficult to imagine ego defense mechanisms kicking into overdrive when beliefs such as these are threatened. As such, is there any wonder that many Christians exhibit an "inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs?
Whether or not you want to admit it, you fail to "see" a lot of things, quite often even after they are pointed out to you.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat story simply describes the symptoms of the disease, it doesn't explain it, and it didn't have to be Jesus who was stabbed (not that I have reason to think it wasn't).
Great link, thanks!
There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity. The piece of evidence I want t ...[text shortened]... ears before Einstein, but neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhile I'm sure you believe that this constitutes compelling evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time ", what you seem to have failed to have even considered is that fact that no knowledge of science or medicine, modern or otherwise, would have been required to make such an observation.
While I'm sure you believe that this constitutes compelling evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time ", what you seem to have failed to have even considered is that fact that no knowledge of science or medicine, modern or otherwise, would have been required to make such an observation. Only someone with a prett ...[text shortened]... you fail to "see" a lot of things, quite often even after they are pointed out to you.
By stating that "the piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics, but it is nevertheless compelling," I was trying to communicate that my evidence wasn't exactly of the variety which the author of the website required. I admit I could have been much clearer. That said, it should have been obvious to you after reading this statement, "IMO, this lends a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion," that I wasn't presenting evidence of scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time, but rather using the insight of modern medicine to authenticate John's eye-witness account.
BTW, If you want to be taken seriously, you need to work on addressing the issue and not the individual. The condescension you employ is nothing more than ad hominem and counterproductive.
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoung[Basically, you'd require a miracle, verified by multiple eye-witnesses. There isn't anything less dramatic? (I'm just trying to get a better idea what your exact criteria is.)]
If he were to break the laws of physics in front of scientists repeatedly with cameras and lots of witnesses, it would go a long way.
Did you know that, Jesus, who died on the cross (which the authenticating John's eye-witness account demonstrates), was later witnessed alive by five hundred people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6) ?
Before you disregard this evidence simply because it is taken from the Bible, consider that Paul's letter to the Corinthians was written and distributed by Paul only twenty years after the crucifixion, which means those who had witnessed Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection would have still been alive. Paul, in fact, indicates that they were: "he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living." This means that the people he was writing to would have been able to confirm Paul's claims. It is one thing for a tight-knit group of apostles to have witnessed Christ risen from the dead, it is quite another to have five hundred people witness Him at once, even considering how doubtful it would be for Christ's disciples to risk persecution and death for something they were lying about.
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehaslol. Nice try to "save" a ridiculously ill-conceived attempt at "compelling evidence".
[b]While I'm sure you believe that this constitutes compelling evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time ", what you seem to have failed to have even considered is that fact that no knowledge of science or medicine, modern or otherwise, would have been required to make such an observation.
By stating tha ndescension you employ is nothing more than ad hominem and counterproductive.[/b]
You introduced your "compelling evidence" as follows:
There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity. The piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics, but it is nevertheless compelling[/b]
And capped it off with the following:
Yeah, it's not the theory of relativity plainly presented in scripture thousands of years before Einstein, but neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual.
And we're supposed to believe that you didn't intend this to be "evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time"?
If all you were trying to do was "authenticate John's eye-witness account", then you wouldn't have included statements such as" "The piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics", " neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual", etc.
Not only that, it also fails to "authenticate John's eye-witness account". It only shows that the writer of John might have had some knowledge of the effect a spear to the side of a body that had been crucified might have.
Even if it didn't fail miserably in "[lending] a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion", in what way would this be "compelling evidence" of the truth of Christianity? Seriously. So what if he was an "eye-witness"?
If you want to be taken seriously, then present something that holds up against the least bit of scrutiny. If you want to be taken seriously, then spare us lame attempts at pretending your failed post was intended to be something other than what it was. How dishonest can you get?
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd we're supposed to believe that you didn't intend this to be "evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time"?
lol. Nice try to "save" a ridiculously ill-conceived attempt at "compelling evidence".
You introduced your "compelling evidence" as follows:
[quote]There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not av something other than what it was. How dishonest can you get?
Did anyone else misconstrue me this badly? Anyone? ATY seemed to have understood the gist of my post just fine...
Originally posted by epiphinehasEye witnesses are not enough for something that fantastic. I remember out front of my building a car was pinned to a light pole by another car, the girls inside robbed, and when the police came random people started saying they saw it just to throw off the cops. They made up all kinds of wild stuff.
[Basically, you'd require a miracle, verified by multiple eye-witnesses. There isn't anything less dramatic? (I'm just trying to get a better idea what your exact criteria is.)]
Did you know that, Jesus, who died on the cross (which the authenticating John's eye-witness account demonstrates), was later witnessed alive by five hundred people at once ...[text shortened]... Christ's disciples to risk persecution and death for something they were lying about.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf all you were trying to do was "authenticate John's eye-witness account", then you wouldn't have included statements such as" "The piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics", " neither was the Bible ever intended to be a scientific manual", etc.
lol. Nice try to "save" a ridiculously ill-conceived attempt at "compelling evidence".
You introduced your "compelling evidence" as follows:
[quote]There is some evidence I would like to present. I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not av something other than what it was. How dishonest can you get?
Dude, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, OK? Give me a break.
Not only that, it also fails to "authenticate John's eye-witness account". It only shows that the writer of John might have had some knowledge of the effect a spear to the side of a body that had been crucified might have.
Stabbing a crucified individual with a spear was not a common practice, if that's what you're insinuating. I know of no other instance in recorded history when a dead individual on a cross was stabbed in the chest with a spear. If you know of something, I'd be happy to hear it.
Even if it didn't fail miserably in "[lending] a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion", in what way would this be "compelling evidence" of the truth of Christianity? Seriously. So what if he was an "eye-witness"?
John's eye-witness account establishing the fact that Christ had died, coupled with the eye-witness accounts of those who witnessed Christ alive after His crucifixion, places the focus squarely on the resurrection event itself and the empty tomb. The empty tomb must be explained, because claiming that Christ somehow survived the cross is no longer a viable option.
Originally posted by epiphinehasGo ahead, explain how, even if you were successful in "[lending] a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion", this would be "compelling evidence" of the truth of Christianity.
[b] And we're supposed to believe that you didn't intend this to be "evidence of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time"?
Did anyone else misconstrue me this badly? Anyone? ATY seemed to have understood the gist of my post just fine...[/b]
You read the standards of proof that the author of the link expected. Explain how your "evidence" would be even remotely conclusive by the standards he set.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEye witnesses are not enough for something that fantastic.
Eye witnesses are not enough for something that fantastic. I remember out front of my building a car was pinned to a light pole by another car, the girls inside robbed, and when the police came random people started saying they saw it just to throw off the cops. They made up all kinds of wild stuff.
Not even the account of five hundred witnesses at once, all witnessing the same thing, i.e., a personal appearance of Jesus Christ after he had plainly died on a cross? It is hard for me to believe that five hundred people could conspire to lie, and even if they could, it is even harder to believe that word of their conspiracy wouldn't get out.