Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

shnarkle

Well-known member
If a scientist could produce data disproving evolution then he would win a Nobel Peace prize and would be recruited by the top universities in the world.
You're joking.
That would be the lot of a professional priest, pastor, or ”Biblical scholar” who went against the party line, in this case, Christian orthodoxy, resulting in no job.
I was referring to Theory of Evolution orthodoxy, but yes that's exactly my point.
Where else is a professional clergy going to get a job if not in the organized religion of his denomination?
Couldn't agree more. They have to go along with the orthodox position of TofE.
Nobody else cares what he has to say, that is, enough to pay him for it. Therefore, religious clergy are beholden to their dogmas, otherwise they cannot eat.
Yep, you're' preaching to the choir now.
An a-theist is more likely to come up with the correct meaning of scripture versus a fundamentalist because the a-theist has nothing to lose. His income does not depend upon the organized religion and he has no concerns for his soul being judged a heretic.
I agree wholeheartedly, yet there are a growing number of atheists who are going to seminaries and pastoring churches as atheists. As crazy as this may sound to some people, their churches are growing.
Which brings me to an obvious fact. The only group fighting against evolution is religious fundamentalists; and the only reason they fight against evolution is because of their dogmas, which collapse in face of reality and truth of evolution.
False. There are a number of scientists, scholars, etc. who have no religious affiliation whatsoever. Many are atheists.
But rather than critically analyze their dogmas they invent useless reasons to deny evolution. Why?
A better question would be to ask why no one addresses their arguments pointing to the glaring flaws in the the TofE.
Because they would find themselves unemployed since no one else, other than their church, cares what they have to say. You are a victim of that system by repeating their errors.
You're projecting. I'm not even a deist, much less a theist.
The irony here is that the world-ordering-cause (i.e., Dynamis Logos) used evolution as a mechanism
Show us this mechanism. Where's the evidence of this mechanism, or should I capitalize it out of reverence for your god?
to diversify biological life resulting in human consciousness.
Please be so kind as to provide the evidence showing this process leading to consciousness. smh. Good luck with that theory dude.
To wit, fundamentalists are fighting the remedy to their own self-inflicted wound, that is, incorrect dogmas/doctrines and ignorance in the world/cosmos.
Perhaps, but what you've presented isn't any better, or really any different from what I can see.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
You're joking.
What you don’t understand is that the stock and trade of a scientist is DATA. Without it, he has only opinion. Quality, repeatable, Data is kingmaker in science.

Whereas, the stock and trade of religious clergy is their interpretation of stories in the Bible. If their interpretation is wrong then they have nothing, or, they have their opinion.

Fundamentalists seem unable to make a distinction between actual data or evidence for a conclusion accepted by scientists versus an interpretation (or no interpretation if taken literally) of a story made by religious clergy. To a fundamentalist Biblical stories are (erroneously taken to be) literal, historical events.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
False. There are a number of scientists, scholars, etc. who have no religious affiliation whatsoever. Many are atheists.
I said, as a “group“, fundamentalists oppose evolution. There are always going to be a few individuals who claim all kinds of things. There is no significant “group” of scientists who oppose evolution, whereas, evangelicals make up a sizeable group who do, —opposed to evolution based solely on their erroneous interpretations of scripture.

Of course, they do, like you have, look for the few individual, fringe scientists in desperation to salvage their opinions of scripture. If you were not motivated by religious doctrine or dogma then you would have no problem with evolution, unless, you are here to just troll people.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Show us this mechanism. Where's the evidence of this mechanism, or should I capitalize it out of reverence for your god?
Science upholds the premise of a Cause of all things to include a cause of first life on our planet, and a cause of evolution, which actually resulted in human consciousness. This is a self-evident truth.

If I call that cause, the “Dynamis Logos” of God then that is what I call it. The Cause of all things can be named differently depending upon the language, culture, of a nation. Paul named this Cause, the anointed Yeshua, coming from a Hebrew background. Greeks called him Logos, or Son of God. Egyptians called him Atum-Ra. Buddhists call the world ordering cause by another name. But no rational person denies the existence of a Cause of all things.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
What you don’t understand is that the stock and trade of a scientist is DATA. Without it, he has only opinion.
He still has his opinion regardless of how much data he has.
Quality, repeatable, Data is kingmaker in science.
No. Their interpretation is what makes them subject to the king's largesse. As soon as they deviate from that orthodoxy, they're out flipping burgers.
Whereas, the stock and trade of religious clergy is their interpretation of stories in the Bible.
A distinction with no effective difference. They are one and the same. Why else are there so many so-called adherents of science so preoccupied with their religious brethren? Real science couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of others.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I said, as a “group“,
I haven't forgotten what you've already said.
There is no significant “group” of scientists who oppose evolution,
There most certainly are. The fact that you not only have never looked at their position, but don't even know of their existence is telling, and spotlights your religious bias.
If you were not motivated by religious doctrine or dogma
Strawman argument.
then you would have no problem with evolution, unless, you are here to just troll people.
You're projecting.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Science upholds the premise of a Cause of all things to include a cause of first life on our planet, and a cause of evolution, which actually resulted in human consciousness. This is a self-evident truth.
False. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
Paul named this Cause, the anointed Yeshua,
No, Paul refers to Christ as the means while the Father is the origin. 1 Corinthians 8:6
 

docphin5

Well-known member
He still has his opinion regardless of how much data he has.

No. Their interpretation is what makes them subject to the king's largesse. As soon as they deviate from that orthodoxy, they're out flipping burgers.

A distinction with no effective difference. They are one and the same. Why else are there so many so-called adherents of science so preoccupied with their religious brethren?

Real science couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of others.
It is actually the opposite of what you just said.

It is the understanding of our cosmos and ourselves through Science that we learn about God. The psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Christianity teaches that God became a man in order to teach us about his kingdom welling up inside us. “Learn what is true in front of you, and the hidden will become evident”, says the Logoi.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
False. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
You are just making stuff up now, —the brain adrift on a dark, stormy ocean. Look for the light piercing the darkness, and find your safe harbor.
No, Paul refers to Christ as the means while the Father is the origin. 1 Corinthians 8:6
It is “through” Christ that “all things” exist; and Christ or Son of God or cosmos is “from” the, “one true God”.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth” (Colossians 1:17)
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
It is actually the opposite of what you just said.
Which only spotlights that were really comparing apples to apples; Science has just become the newest fundamentalist religion on the block and is doing its best to replace those that preceded it. It's populated with its own set of high priests making their unassailable pronouncements ex cathedra to those devotees who blindly and unquestionably follow with a faith that rivals that of flagellating monks.
It is the understanding of our cosmos and ourselves through Science that we learn about God.
You're still conflating the creation with the creator. Even an unbeliever like myself can see that.
The psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”
Yep, and those declarations are not God either.
Christianity teaches that God became a man
Some teach that, but the text itself clearly states that it was "the word" that became man, not god.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You are just making stuff up now,
Not at all. I'm pointing out that claiming a self evident truth isn't proving anything. It's a claim you have not proven. Therefore it is no different than the fallacy of Begging the Question which means that you are presenting as a Given what you are claiming to prove.
It is “through” Christ that “all things” exist; and Christ or Son of God or cosmos is “from” the, “one true God”.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth” (Colossians 1:17)
By, and through indicate means, not origin. Paul distinguishes between God and Christ, the Father and the Son, and the origin and the means BY which everything comes into existence. Prepositions were supposed to have been covered in the fourth grade.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Not at all. I'm pointing out that claiming a self evident truth isn't proving anything. It's a claim you have not proven. Therefore it is no different than the fallacy of Begging the Question which means that you are presenting as a Given what you are claiming to prove.

Not so: all one needs to do is declare the truth (according to you):

The truth is always and everywhere self-evident. The intellect is not the proper faculty for discerning the truth. One cannot validate the truth by knowing the truth. The truth validates itself. As Paul says, there is only one mediator between God and humanity, and the ability to know anything isn't it. Anything one may place between that immediate connection with the truth cannot validate the truth, and isn't necessary when one has that direct connection.
Away with proof! If it's true, the LAST thing you should do is prove it: that would place an abstraction between you and the self evident truth! Or at least, according to you. Reasonable people take a different approach.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Mainly a scientist. I knew that evolution was true. I also experienced a companion to my soul directing my steps, always present with me. So when Christianity could not explain how the two were connected I just asked my companion. He told me where to look, interpreted the scriptures, and helped me find the answers. I discovered a cloud of like minded individuals throughout the history of humans in every nation, culture, and religion. They were called by many names: mystics, magi, heirophants, gymnosophists, Essenes, Therapeutae, philosophers (i.e., lover of Wisdom), gnostics. It matters not what they were called by others for they all loved knowledge or Wisdom of the Divine.
Fell for evolution mythologies?

No evidence of a scientific observation of a human/primate common ancestor? No genealogy?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
What would explain punishing and killing the disciples if there was no Jesus, no new church, no miracles just life as usual?
The teaching itself which points out that by denying oneself, Christ is revealed. It is through self sacrifice that one is able to live a resurrected life. The gospels point out that it isn't history, miracles, etc. that sets anyone free. It is the truth that sets one free.
 
Top