Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED

[Hieru]

@unknownuser said:

This counters the common argument that such a 'myth' developed many years later like a game of telephone.

Not really. Perceptions can change within hours of witnessing an event and it doesn't take long for that perception to change to such a degree that it bears little resemblance to the reality of the original events - this is a problem with all eye-witness testimony and not limited to the supposed eye-witness accounts recalled many years after the fact in the Gospels.

Add to that the agenda of the Gospel authors and you can't objectively accept the events of the resurrection without any non-biblical documentary evidence (something which is tellingly in short supply).

[brodie]

@hieru said:

Not really. Perceptions can change within hours of witnessing an event and it doesn't take long for that perception to change to such a degree that it bears little resemblance to the reality of the original events - this is a problem with all eye-witness testimony and not limited to the supposed eye-witness accounts recalled many years after the fact in the Gospels.

It's one thing for someone to remember a shorter person as being tall or a red car as being green. It's quite another to mis-remember a dead man as having appeared to you. Eye-witness testimony isn't infallible and the historical method doesn't assume so. But within the historical method we have documents reporting on events sometimes hundreds of years prior to their written recording that we accept as credible accounts. It would seem that by your standards we couldn't trust even first hand eye witness accounts which would essentially make any historical study nonsensical. That's why I'm trying to adhere to accepted historical method. These aren't myrules for determining historical accuracy, these are methods developed by historians and scholars.

@unknownuser said:

Add to that the agenda of the Gospel authors and you can't objectively accept the events of the resurrection without any non-biblical documentary evidence (something which is tellingly in short supply).

In ancient times EVERYONE writing a historical record had a bias. People didn't do these things for fun. They were difficult and often costly. The historical method takes these factors into account by looking at what there biases were (not ifthey were but what) and factoring that into the equation. Josephus for example was a Jewish historian employed by Rome and yet we regard the majority of his accounts as quite reliable. Here, in 1 Corinthians we might ask what people had to gain by claiming Jesus to have been resurrected?

-Brodie

[Hieru]

@unknownuser said:

It's one thing for someone to remember a shorter person as being tall or a red car as being green. It's quite another to misremember a dead man as having appeared to you.

You would be surprised at the way people can drastically misperceive what they have seen. Even large groups of people can mistakenly believe that they have seen some kind of exotic phenomena.

Obviously the historical method takes account for this fallibility, but along with the problem of bias it's also the reason that historians prefer not to draw conclusions based on a single source - especially when we are dealing with incredible claims - and will seek out corroborating evidence from various sources or even other fields. When it comes to the resurrection there is no evidence outside of the NT and our empirical understanding of medicine tells us that it's impossible for someone to come back to life after clinical death.

Applying the historical method we can't lend claims regarding the resurrection any more weight than say the claims of the Heaven's Gate cult.

@unknownuser said:

Here, in 1 Corinthians we might ask what people had to gain by claiming Jesus to have been resurrected?

Every cult needs a hook to draw the punters in.

[cornel]

@hieru said:

When it comes to the resurrection there is no evidence outside of the NT

Resurrection of Jesus Christ was an act so OBVIOUS, that not only his disciples, but millions of martyrs were ready to give their life for Him, knowing that they will be resurrected also...!

[brodie]

@hieru said:

You would be surprised at the way people can drastically misperceive what they have seen. Even large groups of people can mistakenly believe that they have seen some kind of exotic phenomena.

Is that your position as to what happened here?

@unknownuser said:

Obviously the historical method takes account for this fallibility, but along with the problem of bias it's also the reason that historians prefer not to draw conclusions based on a single source - especially when we are dealing with incredible claims - and will seek out corroborating evidence from various sources or even other fields. When it comes to the resurrection there is no evidence outside of the NT and our empirical understanding of medicine tells us that it's impossible for someone to come back to life after clinical death.

You're jumping the gun again. I'm not going right for the jugular to prove Jesus' resurrection based on this one point. The only thing I'm trying to get some sort of concession on is that Christians were making the claimvery early on that Jesus had raised from the dead, therefore this isn't legendary material.

The Bible isn't a single source. It's a collection of multiple sources, various letters, histories, and such. To count it as a single source would be historically inaccurate.

It's valid to ask why we don't have extra-biblical sources attesting to a particular event but that doesn't necessarily discount the event occurred from a historical perspective.

Applying the historical method we can't lend claims regarding the resurrection any more weight than say the claims of the Heaven's Gate cult.

Medical science shows us that a dead person doesn't come on account of natural or any known man-made cause (at least not after a few days of being dead). But this isn't the claim (people knew even back then that dead people don't come back). The claim is that Jesus was resurrected by supernaturalcauses, for which science has nothing to say. If I keeled over one day and came back a few days later that would be unfathomable and unexplainable. But that's because there's no context. Jesus, however, insinuated and hinted several times that this would happen, then it did. I don't expect you to take all that at face value but that's the price to pay for getting ahead of ourselves I guess.

@unknownuser said:

Every cult needs a hook to draw the punters in.

That doesn't explain anything. The Jews at that time weren't waiting for an a-political resurrected messiah. They were looking for a political leader that would overthrow the Roman oppressors. That's why in every other case after the 'would-be' messiah was put to death, the followers gave up hope that he had been the messiah. Even if inventing the story made sense from a historical perspective, by all accounts the early leaders did nothing but suffer for their convictions and ultimately died on account of them. Again, there's no motivation.

-Brodie

[Starling75]

[flash=600,400:14vh09ff]http://www.youtube.com/v/2W1FWNSn83U?version=3&hl=cs_CZ&amp[/flash:14vh09ff]

[Hieru]

@unknownuser said:

Is that your position as to what happened here?

I don't think it's a complete solution, but I think it's an important factor that has to be considered. We could be dealing with the testimony of people who weren't initiated into the inner mysteries of the cult and misperceived a non-literal resurrection rite. There are lots of mundane explanations that are more credible than the paranormal explanation.

@unknownuser said:

The only thing I'm trying to get some sort of concession on is that Christians were making the claimvery early on that Jesus had raised from the dead, therefore this isn't legendary material.

That's a non sequitur. Obviously early Christians made claims regarding the resurrection (some seem more literal than others), but I take issue with the notion that these claims are made very early - the supposed eye witness accounts are said to have been recorded a considerable time after they occurred and are subject to human error and deliberate fabrication, so it doesn't follow that we aren't dealing with 'legend'.

@unknownuser said:

The Bible isn't a single source.

I wasn't referring to the Bible but Christianity itself i.e. a single authority.

@unknownuser said:

It's valid to ask why we don't have extra-biblical sources attesting to a particular event but that doesn't necessarily discount the event occurred from a historical perspective.

It does however speak to the strength of the evidence.

@unknownuser said:

The claim is that Jesus was resurrected by supernaturalcauses, for which science has nothing to say.

That's begging the question as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural. There has never been objective evidence for any supernatural phenomena and if the supernatural isn't subject to empirical study then we simply couldn't be aware of it anyway - it would have no means of interacting with reality or being perceived by anything that is limited by the materialistic laws of the universe (which includes all of our senses).

@unknownuser said:

That doesn't explain anything. The Jews at that time weren't waiting for an a-political resurrected messiah. They were looking for a political leader that would overthrow the Roman oppressors. That's why in every other case after the 'would-be' messiah was put to death, the followers gave up hope that he had been the messiah. Even if inventing the story made sense from a historical perspective, by all accounts the early leaders did nothing but suffer for their convictions and ultimately died on account of them. Again, there's no motivation.

That's what I meant by a hook. The early Christians set themselves apart by offering something other cults did not. It may seem counter-intuitive but showing how much you are willing to sacrifice for a cause can be a good draw for would-be converts. The fact that you think it speaks to the credibility of the resurrection shows how psychologically powerful that can be. Which brings me back to Heaven's Gate. Should we also consider their beliefs to be credible just because they were willing to die for them?

[brodie]

@hieru said:

I don't think it's a complete solution, but I think it's an important factor that has to be considered. We could be dealing with the testimony of people who weren't initiated into the inner mysteries of the cult and misperceived a non-literal resurrection rite. There are lots of mundane explanations that are more credible than the paranormal explanation.

What your saying is contrary to the historical documentation we have though. Matthew and John were both apostles who followed Jesus daily for 3 years. Likewise, the creed Paul is quoting says that people actually sawJesus after his resurrection and even names names of people who were alive at the time. These aren't the non-initiated.

Furthermore, a non-literal resurrection doesn't even make sense within the Jewish frame of reference. Beyond that this is part of the reason for showing the early date of the creed as it is extremely literal in it's tone.

@unknownuser said:

That's a non sequitur. Obviously early Christians made claims regarding the resurrection (some seem more literal than others), but I take issue with the notion that these claims are made very early - the supposed eye witness accounts are said to have been recorded a considerable time after they occurred and are subject to human error and deliberate fabrication, so it doesn't follow that we aren't dealing with 'legend'.

Isn't this the exact issue we've been discussing? I provided historical evidence that this creed dates to within just a few years of Jesus' death (some argue even sooner). If you want to 'take issue' with it that's fine, but it's no good to simply not like it, of course. What's required is some sort of counter-evidence that suggests my 'early date' conclusion is incorrect.

@unknownuser said:

I wasn't referring to the Bible but Christianity itself i.e. a single authority.

Would we expect to find a source who'd witnessed Jesus' resurrection and didn't convert to Christianity?

@unknownuser said:

That's begging the question as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural. There has never been objective evidence for any supernatural phenomena and if the supernatural isn't subject to empirical study then we simply couldn't be aware of it anyway - it would have no means of interacting with reality or being perceived by anything that is limited by the materialistic laws of the universe (which includes all of our senses).

It's not begging the question as I'm not presupposing the supernatural. I'm saying that IF Jesus was resurrected in the way it's claimed, then it was a supernatural event. Since early Christians weren't claiming that Jesus naturallyraised from the dead then what naturallyoccurs is irrelevant.

@unknownuser said:

That's what I meant by a hook. The early Christians set themselves apart by offering something other cults did not. It may seem counter-intuitive but showing how much you are willing to sacrifice for a cause can be a good draw for would-be converts. The fact that you think it speaks to the credibility of the resurrection shows how psychologically powerful that can be. Which brings me back to Heaven's Gate. Should we also consider their beliefs to be credible just because they were willing to die for them?

Many people have been willing to die for a cultic or religious belief. Heaven's gate, Islam, Christianity, etc. The difference in this case, though, is that the apostles were dying for something they claimed to have physically seen with their own eyes. That's quite different from dying for what someone else claims to have seen or what they claim to be true.

Most cults are easily dismissed in the sense that, if the one guy at the top is just bat crap crazy, the whole cult is doomed. Likewise, if the guy at the top is making a bunch of money or getting a lot of power out of the deal, we can be highly suspicious of his motives. But history shows us that Christianity's earliest for was a group of men claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus which they then spent the rest of their lives proclaiming to other people despite persecution, hardship, and eventually execution. Combined with many other details, this fits the model of no other cult I'm aware of.

-Brodie

[Alan Fraser]

@Hieru
Now you can see why the rest of us simply gave up, David.

[Hieru]

I know, I should have known better - I've had plenty of discussions like this and after a while it feel like you are debating with the same person over and over.

Anyway I'll have one last go: I just need to take my time and consider how to convey my thoughts in an unambiguous way that cannot be twisted.

[Rich O Brien]

I'm just wondering if religious/non religious debate is needed on the forum?

The past month has seen a few threads devolve into flinging shit at one another. Not to sound like a jerk but is SCF really a place for such topics? I prefer to see gallery submissions, problems solved etc than a debate which has raged for 100's of years already.

I like a good discussion but when you see long standing pillars of the community trod on each others toes numerous times a day it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I realise people opinions are different but to see this thread dominate for so long and no real value to be gotten out of it it begs the question...

[irwanwr]

@unknownuser said:

The past month has seen a few threads devolve into flinging shit at one another. Not to sound like a jerk but is SCF really a place for such topics? I prefer to see gallery submissions, problems solved etc than a debate which has raged for 100's of years already.

[Gaieus]

@unknownuser said:

I'm just wondering if religious/non religious debate is needed on the forum?

Well, I have learnt to press that "mark topics read" link already.

[david_h]

This thread has gone on for some 60+ pages, and in my mind, only really really important threads need to go on that long. . .like funny videos of talking dogs, and people driving their cars into outhouses. You know. . that sort of thing.

[Rich O Brien]

It's easy to ignore these threads but as a member I prefer to see energy invested elsewhere. As a topic I fail to see who has benefited of late.

I hate to see topics locked or removed as there should be no need. Here's hoping that it will sink soon so we can get back massaging egos.

I'd love to know what others are modeling of late. There's a great challenge being voted on that needs your attention. TIG's latest Slicer plugin is epic. Thomthom's looking for cookies before he'll finish Bezier Surface. Steve had his model stolen. Dave turned 51. Mike installed Lion on his nicotine powered Mac.

CatchUp is out next week with some nice surprises

[Mike Lucey]

From looking at the number of views, I imagine many are finding the posts amusing also!

[brodie]

I'm with Pete on this one. He and I have had a couple relatively heated debates in this thread but I think we're still as much friends as we were before. I think for the most part for a religious debate it's been quite a civil discussion by all parties.

Most of your points, Rich, are well taken though. There are a number of productive SketchUp related discussions to be had, but sometimes you just have to take a break from talking shop for awhile and have a good ol' pub conversation at the corner bar (while your stuff renders).

At any rate the thread seems to be dying of old age at this point anyhow, so no need to kill it

-Brodie

[Stinkie]

Time for drinks then?

[Hieru]

@unknownuser said:

Time for drinks then?

Sounds like a good plan to me

I'd be happy to continue the discussion if I thought it was going anywhere, but we've driven around the same block a few times already..............so it's probably as good a time as any to call it a day and restore our toolbar positions.

[andybot]

edit: eh, nevermind. Have another drink...