What is Faith?

[El Cid]

All of this is your interpretation of the above. For example, you have nothing that shows DNA is a code, you just infer it is. That's not strong evidence.

DNA transmits information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I believe the evidence points to them being supernatural though of course, the official reports say unexplained.

Are you implying that science is suppressing evidence of the supernatural?

Really...?

 

[Whatsisface]

DNA transmits information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language.

DNA is chemistry doing what chemistry does. That it's a code because of conscious intelligence behind it is something you haven't demonstrated.

 

[Eightcrackers]

DNA transmits information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language.

Language goes from mind to mind.

What mind is receiving the language that is DNA?

 

[El Cid]

Wait a minute, do you mean each report is either one of violating the laws of physics or appearing to, or that some reports merely appear to violate the laws of physics and others actually are violating the laws of physics.

Also, the link you gave me to The War Zone web page did not contain any conclusion by any experts that some laws of physics had been confirmed to have been violated. Can you provide me the actual original source of some expert who has concluded that the 2014 and 2015 east coast Navy sightings have been confirmed to violate the laws of physics?

It was on TV news, I dont have a link.

 

[El Cid]

If an event could be confirmed to have broken the laws of physics, it would be evidence of the supernatural.
"Appear to have been" is not enough - show up in court with a forensics expert that says

"this fingerprint appears to be that of the accused"

and see what the opposing counsel says. Indeed, what the judge says. Because it is likely to be something along the lines of

"Never mind "appears" - is it his fingerprint, or not!?"

No, in the process of finding black holes at first they just saw some anomalous things in space then they saw some behaviors of light and etc. and that was considered evidence for black holes even though no one had ever seen a black hole. But then fairly recently we obtained photos of black holes confirming the existence of black holes. So things violating the laws of physics IS evidence for the supernatural, just as those observations were evidence for black holes.

 

[Eightcrackers]

So things violating the laws of physics IS evidence for the supernatural

Exactly - things violating the laws, not just appearing to do so.

How do you tell the difference?

 

[Gus Bovona]

It was on TV news, I dont have a link.

So we don't have anything to point to to get us to conclude that some UFOs violated the laws of physics. Certainly no scientists are saying that.

 

[El Cid]

Actually there is no real evidence that it ever circulated without his name on it. I was just referring to the typical liberal view. But Martin Hengel in his Studies in the Gospel of Mark makes a strong argument that they were never circulated without the authors names attached.

I was responded to your comment, in which you stated, "The gospels were not anonymous when they were originally circulating, they just didnt have a written name on them." If you were just paraphrasing the liberal view, it would have been clearer if you'd said "perhaps (according to some liberal scholars) they didn't have a written name on them, but the authors were known to the early Christians." My question still stands: do we have any good reason, now, to believe that (for example) "The Gospel According to Matthew" was written by the apostle Matthew, other than the reports by Christians in the next century?

According to Hengel his name was attached immediately in the First century. So that is one piece of evidence. And then the reports you mention combined with the unlikely attribution of such an obscure disciple to the book unless the evidence warranted it.

El Cid said:
Yes and the key question is why was he no longer a skeptic?

Because he had a vision in which Christ spoke to him. Not because he believed the reports of others who claimed to have seen him, reports which you are now saying we should take as strong enough evidence to convince us, two thousand years later.

No, he did not have a vision, he saw Christ in the flesh as shown by the men with him hearing Jesus' voice. Visions are purely subjective. If it was a vision, they would not have heard His voice. Yes, the other independent source reports He appeared to 500 others, including Jesus' skeptic brother, who was martyred for his belief.

El Cid said:
If a creed was composed by someone who was NOT a NT writer then that is independent of the NT.

No, that's not how "independent evidence" is generally defined. We have a NT passage from Paul, saying Christ was seen by many after his death. Some scholars think it likely that Paul is restating a creed which existed before Paul wrote it down. But even if that is the case, the NT passage is our only source for that creed, which means you can't call that creed "evidence that is independent of the NT." Similarly, if our only source for Julius Caesar being offered a crown was Plutarch, then even if scholars all agreed that Plutarch was restating an account which existed before he wrote it down, we can't say it is evidence "that is independent of Plutarch."

No, if it is a different author from several years before Paul even became a believer that is an independent source. Yes it would be source independent of Plutarch. There is no other definition of independent.

But this is mostly an academic point. Substantively, even if Paul was repeating a creed which existed soon after the crucifixion, "some Christians were saying in 40 A.D. that others had seen the risen Christ" does not constitute strong evidence that others had seen the risen Christ.

Actually many scholars date the creed to 36 AD. Yes, it does constitute strong historical evidence combined with all the other evidence in the gospels. Especially if some were sources that were independent and some were formerly hostile like Paul and James. You have to be able to explain why these known skeptics would make a 180 degree change in such a short period. And in the case of James dying for that belief shortly afterwards.

 

[Komodo]

According to Hengel his name was attached immediately in the First century. So that is one piece of evidence.

If the conclusions of one scholar to that effect constitute evidence for that claim, then the contrary conclusions of other scholars constitute evidence against that claim.

And then the reports you mention...

The attribution seems to start with Papias, who lived roughly 60 A.D. to 130 A.D. according to Wikipedia. We have a citation of Papias, from much later, which has him simply saying that the disciple Matthew wrote a "logia" about Jesus. Scholars don't even agree about what this means, or whether it refers to the "Gospel of Matthew" as we have it.

combined with the unlikely attribution of such an obscure disciple to the book unless the evidence warranted it.

We don't know which disciples were "obscure" around 70 A.D. We don't know what was known, or assumed, or rumored about this particular disciple around that time, that might make his name attractive as the supposed author of this gospel. Maybe the fact that he was a tax collector implied that he was literate, unlike the typical fisherman, and so would make him a more plausible candidate.

No, he did not have a vision, he saw Christ in the flesh as shown by the men with him hearing Jesus' voice.

Hearing a voice is not the same as seeing somebody in the flesh. Acts 9 does not say anything explicitly (or implicitly, so far as I can see) about anybody -- either Saul or his companions -- seeing and recognizing Jesus. In any case, the reason for Paul's belief in the resurrected Jesus was apparently this experience, and not any consideration he'd given to reports from others.

Yes, the other independent source reports He appeared to 500 others, including Jesus' skeptic brother, who was martyred for his belief.

That is, Paul says that somebody said that he appeared to those others. Calling this an "independent source" is just a way of trying to elevate the credibility of what is obviously hearsay.

No, if it is a different author from several years before Paul even became a believer that is an independent source. Yes it would be source independent of Plutarch. There is no other definition of independent.

You are simply wrong about there being "no other definition of independent," as I noted when quoting the Wikipedia article on "Multiple Independent Sources."

Actually many scholars date the creed to 36 AD. Yes, it does constitute strong historical evidence...

"Anonymous people are reported by a later source to have said something miraculous happened" is not "strong historical evidence" that the miraculous thing happened.

...combined with all the other evidence in the gospels.

Nor have you explained why the gospels constitute strong evidence.

Especially if some were sources that were independent...

Again,anonymous people who were reported by a later source as having said people saw the risen Christ are not "especially" powerful evidence for the resurrection.

...and some were formerly hostile like Paul and James.

Why are you counting James as "hostile" like Paul?

You have to be able to explain why these known skeptics would make a 180 degree change in such a short period. And in the case of James dying for that belief shortly afterwards.

According to Luke, Paul had an overwhelming experience on the road to Damascus. I'm not disputing that, or claiming he made it up. But such experiences are not something which others should be expected to trust.

As for the others, we have essentially no information about what made them continued followers of Christ, so their motivations -- what they believed, exactly, and why they believed it -- are pretty much entirely undiscoverable at this distance in time.

 

[El Cid]

How do you confirm your wife loves you?

Lots of ways. Little attentions, looks, a general good will towards you etc etc. What's your point?

So it is with God. Experiences.

El Cid said:
As an atheist, how do you know how a deity should answer prayer?

It doesn't matter whether I'm an atheist or not, if the so called answer is something that could have happened anyway, then you can't know it's from a deity.
.

No, it would be like me claiming to being able to recognize all the little things your wife does that are a sign of her love for you. It would be unlikely I could do that except in a few obvious cases.

 

[El Cid]

Only the Christian Bible teaches many of the scientifically confirmed characteristics of the universe 3000 years before science discovered them.

Such as?

The universe has a definite beginning in finite time (Gen. 1:1). The universe was not made with anything detectable by humans (Hebrews 11:3). The universe is expanding (Job 9:8). The universe operates according to fixed physical laws (Jeremiah 33:25). And many more.

El Cid said:
It was a joke because the way you phrased it, it sounded like you actually had slaves.

Ok.

El Cid said:
The Bible does not teach that you could beat them within an inch of their lives. If you just knocked a tooth out or any other permanent damage which probably also included mental damage, the slave had to be freed.

Exodus 20: 20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property".

First let me say that hebrew slavery was voluntary except for POWs and criminals, see Exodus 21:16. Second if the slave survives a day or two and then dies, that means that the slave most likely had a pre-existing condition unrelated to the beating. Remember they didnt have doctors, MRIs and X rays back then. The slave may have had some internal damage or sickness that could not be identified by outward inspection. That would be the only way that the master couldnt be charged directly for his death. He could not even break the skin because that would probably result in a scar and that would be considered permanent damage and the master would be held accountable for that.

El Cid said:
The daughter situation was more of like a marriage apprenticeship. It helped her learn how to be a good wife. No sex though because sex was only allowed in actual marriage.

Exodus 21:7“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do".

That can also mean servant. But it is plain from the context that this was a trial marriage without sex, because she is released if she fails to please her master. And she must be sent back to her family not foreigners.

Here's a verse sanctioning beating women.

Niv, Exodus 20: 20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

See above. Most other societies at the time. could kill their slaves with impunity. In Israel, the murderer of a slave is treated just like the murderer of free person, ie they were executed.

 

[Whatsisface]

So it is with God. Experiences.

But the question is, are those experiences from an existing God or because of your Idea of God?

 

[Whatsisface]

The universe has a definite beginning in finite time (Gen. 1:1). The universe was not made with anything detectable by humans (Hebrews 11:3). The universe is expanding (Job 9:8). The universe operates according to fixed physical laws (Jeremiah 33:25). And many more.

These are too vague and not surprisingly arrived at. Now, if the Bible had something in it like, protons and neutrons are made of quarks of various flavours which is detail that couldn't be guessed, then you would have something.

Btw, Muslims claim the same as you but for the Quran, that it talks of scientific revelation.

First let me say that hebrew slavery was voluntary except for POWs and criminals, see Exodus 21:16.

Non Hebrew slavery wasn't. Leviticus 25:44 -“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves".

Second if the slave survives a day or two and then dies, that means that the slave most likely had a pre-existing condition unrelated to the beating.
Remember they didnt have doctors, MRIs and X rays back then. The slave may have had some internal damage or sickness that could not be identified by outward inspection. That would be the only way that the master couldnt be charged directly for his death. He could not even break the skin because that would probably result in a scar and that would be considered permanent damage and the master would be held accountable for that.

Forget the pre existing conditions, we're talking about beating slaves to within an inch of their lives. So it's ok to beat your slaves? Really? That is what you are saying here, you're excusing the Bible saying it's OK for masters to beat their slaves.

That can also mean servant. But it is plain from the context that this was a trial marriage without sex, because she is released if she fails to please her master. And she must be sent back to her family not foreigners.

It can also mean slave, and slave was the word used, not trial marriage.

See above. Most other societies at the time. could kill their slaves with impunity. In Israel, the murderer of a slave is treated just like the murderer of free person, ie they were executed.

Unless the slave got up after a day or two. Is that morally acceptable to you, that a master can beat a slave so?

 

[El Cid]

It really doesn't If you look at what we actually know and don't know and base your views on that. You are making inferences to certain conclusions without there being hard evidence for your conclusions.

You cant get much harder evidence than the universe and its characteristics.

 

[Whatsisface]

You cant get much harder evidence than the universe and its characteristics.

But you are inferring from that, without there being hard evidence for your inferred conclusions.

 

[El Cid]

Brains are not just a series of chemical reactions. They are the most complex things we know of in the universe that give rise to consciousness that can, with education, produce logical conclusions.

There is no evidence that complex chemical reactions behave in any more significantly different way than less complex chemical reactions. They both behave according to the laws of chemistry, not logic.

 

[Whatsisface]

There is no evidence that complex chemical reactions behave in any more significantly different way than less complex chemical reactions. They both behave according to the laws of chemistry, not logic.

Again, brains are not just complex chemical reactions. Neurons are not just chemical, they are physical. Whether God exists or not we are what we are, you are saying that God best explains what we are, but you're only giving unevidenced one liners to justify it.

 

[El Cid]

I see no significant difference. How can physical processes produce something non-physical?

If you're saying you can't comprehend how physical processes could produce thoughts and judgments, that's entirely reasonable; even many naturalistic philosophers say they have no answer to the "how." (If you're claiming it's impossible in principle, that's a stronger claim, which you would have to justify. If that claim is based on the principle that "no effect can possess any properties not possessed by its cause," then I think that's a false principle, for reasons I've already given.)

Yes, I dont see how and while it may not be impossible for something physical to produce something non-physical, I think all the evidence so far says it is extremely unlikely.

But if you're saying you can't comprehend the proposition that physical processes produce thoughts and judgments, then I can't comprehend how you can't comprehend it. "A causes B" is a very simple concept, even if you think that this particular A couldn't possibly cause this particular B. For example, I don't think it's at all possible that the alignment of the stars and planets at your birth could be the cause of your personality traits, but I have no problem at all understanding that this is what astrology devotees believe.

Of course I think there are people that either consciously or unconsciously are so committed to naturalism so that it can help confirm their belief that the Christian God does not exist, that they will strongly defend it even if it goes against most of the evidence.

So, if naturalists believe physical events cause brain states; that brain states cause mental states; that among those mental states are such things as "weighing evidence"; and that natural selection will result in brains which possess the capacity to bring about mental states which weigh evidence reliably... then the naturalist is not saying anything self-contradictory, and there is no reason, within the naturalist's own view, why they should not trust their own ability to weigh evidence. Your answer to that has been, "but according to naturalism, coming to conclusions is just chemical reactions, and chemical reactions aren't valid or invalid, so conclusions can't be valid or invalid."

It's the part in bold which is wrong. Naturalism doesn't say that "coming to conclusions" is just chemical reactions, they say that "coming to conclusions" is a mental state which is an emergent property ultimately caused by chemical reactions. You may believe this is wrong, even impossible; but that does not at all mean that naturalists are inconsistent. Naturalist premises are inconsistent with your premises; that doesn't make them internally inconsistent.

A relatively simple summary of my argument against naturalism can be explained in this way:
1. If naturalism is true, then all thoughts, including the thought naturalism is true, can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.
2. If all thoughts are the result of irrational causes, then all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible.
3. If all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible, then no one is justified in believing that naturalism is true.
4. Therefore, naturalism should be rejected.

El Cid said:
No, if the mind is not totally tied to the physical then it can operate according to non-physical laws of logic and come to beliefs based on that logical reasoning.

You say that naturalism fails here, because it posits a cause for mental activity which is different from "the non-physical laws of logic"; but you're not proposing any alternative cause which would be similar enough to those laws in order to make things work. "It's not physical!" is not an alternative cause. Unless you're suggesting a kind of "spirit of logic" as an active cause of our thinking, I don't know what kind of cause would "operate according to non-physical laws of logic."

A non-physical mind not bound and limited by the laws of physics can operate according to the laws of logic.

 

[Eightcrackers]

1. If naturalism is true, then all thoughts, including the thought naturalism is true, can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.
2. If all thoughts are the result of irrational causes, then all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible.
3. If all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible, then no one is justified in believing that naturalism is true.
4. Therefore, naturalism should be rejected.

"If naturalism is true, we have no choice whether or not we accept that naturalism is true."

Yes?

If so, telling people that naturalism should be rejected, is pointless.

A non-physical mind not bound and limited by the laws of physics can operate according to the laws of logic.

Do you think that the laws of logic may not be accepted by a naturalist?
If so, call me a "naturalist+logic".