Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[M.D. Rawlings]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

I thought Aristotle's post was thoughtful and sincere.

Though I profoundly disagree with a number of his sentiments, he nevertheless zeros in on an important truth: there's no argument to be had that proves God's existence or His nonexistence, and the barrier of faith, with regard to the belief in a specific Deity, is insurmountable . . . though the arguments for the existence of God, Whoever, objectively speaking, that might be, have the logical edge.

Correction: Metaphysical claims are not unknowable, for they are rational constructs very well known by those who apprehend them. They just don't readily lend themselves to the calculi of science. Metaphysics is an indispensable discipline, an inescapable necessity of human consciousness and action. You just think you understand its nature correctly.

All scientific theories rest on one metaphysical presupposition or another. Though their criteria are different, metaphysics and mathematics are to a significant extent inseparable.

The word "unknowable" is careless, misleading. The proper way to look at metaphysical claims is that they are not empirically falsifiable. Nevertheless, they are among the various assumptions we make everyday in our lives in order to live them. Some metaphysical assumptions work out just fine. Others don't.

But then the same has been true about a good many scientific claims as well.

Your extreme materialism is showing. Better zip that up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I continue this, Quantum, mainly because I enjoy debating you. I have far too much regard for your tenacity to expect you to collapse into a whimpering puddle of dog spittle. But damn you for your analogy because picturing a puddle whimpering made me shoot coffee through my nostrils.

Nice to know I can occasionally contribute to the destruction of keyboards and monitors.

By the way, hasn't anyone ever told you not to drink coffee around a computer?



Those references are not in the Bible, they are in a single translation of the Bible, the first official government sanctioned translation in history. I don't know about you, but I expect anything a government does to be screwed up.



I pretty much ignored this before because you are talking about doctrine, not the Bible.

The Hebrew word translated as hell in the KJV is sheol. Sheol basically means grave. I don't know why the KJV used hell here, nor do I care, I am not defending the KJV translation, I am defending the Bible, which uses the word שְׁאוֹל.



The Christian theory? What Christian theory are you talking about? The anthropologists who study the scrolls tell me that the Essenes were a sect of Jewish believers. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not contain a fragment of the Gospel of Mark because they predate Christ by 3 to 400 years.



You want the Dead Sea Scrolls to be about a sect that didn't appear until 300 years after they were written? Why?

And, per your last post, you're the one that is so focused on "winning." That's your language. I'm here to learn and to increase my understanding. In order to engage in this discussion, I am forced to research and report. It is stimulating. It is beneficial. You are very confrontational and you have a focus on winning. Your focus seems more on establishing the other as an idiot or and asshole. I pay pretty close attention to you, Quantum, so in some ways you really should take that as a compliment.

I win because I stick to facts, unlike you. If I ever came across anyone that tired to tie the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christianity I dismissed them without further reading.

I wasn't trying to establish anything of the kind. Goodness. So, you are unaware the theory that was promoted by the two men mentioned above. I get it. I figured if you researched the Dead Sea Scrolls you would know about it. Most do. My mistake. Moving on.

Now, I REALLY don't know what you're on about. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an extremely significant find because they are the earliest known copies of biblical documents and provided a greater perspective of the Second Temple Judaism. I just don't know that has to do with the authenticity of the Bible. Some texts bear close correlation with later translations, while others have dramatic differences. Anyway, I have never questioned the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My main mistake was in assuming that you were pushing the same tired notion of NT content that I've heard many times.

In any event, I am troubled at your insistence that I do not use facts. I have really done my best to stick to exactly the facts. If I failed to establish a proper context, well, I'm only human. However, when you say that I lie or not use facts, please point out where. You have a tendency to just say "liar" and "stupid" and "unfactual," you never point out where. The theory of Christian content is a fact. I didn't make it up, I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. I have not presented a single bit of information that is not based on fact.

I didn't say the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the authenticity of the bible, I said they provide evidence that the Old Testament has remained unchanged over the years. The manuscripts found among the scrolls contain portions of the Old Testament that are remarkably similar to the Masoretic Text, which were considered the most accurate because it is the oldest known copy of the Old Testament previous to 1947.

I think if you go back and read my posts you will see that every time I accused you of lying I tried to put it in context. I didn't accuse you of lying in this post, I was just trying to explain why I choose to ignore ridiculous theories about the Gospel of Mark being among the scrolls. I vaguely recall seeing it years ago, but it is absolute bunk, so I dismissed it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

I thought Aristotle's post was thoughtful and sincere.

Though I profoundly disagree with a number of his sentiments, he nevertheless zeros in on an important truth: there's no argument to be had that proves God's existence or His nonexistence, and the barrier of faith, with regard to the belief in a specific Deity, is insurmountable . . . though the arguments for the existence of God, Whoever, objectively speaking, that might be, have the logical edge.

Correction: Metaphysical claims are not unknowable, for they are rational constructs very well known by those who apprehend them. They just don't readily lend themselves to the calculi of science. Metaphysics is an indispensable discipline, an inescapable necessity of human consciousness and action. You just think you understand its nature correctly.

All scientific theories rest on one metaphysical presupposition or another. Though their criteria are different, metaphysics and mathematics are to a significant extent inseparable.

The word "unknowable" is careless, misleading. The proper way to look at metaphysical claims is that they are not empirically falsifiable. Nevertheless, they are among the various assumptions we make everyday in our lives in order to live them. Some metaphysical assumptions work out just fine. Others don't.

But then the same has been true about a good many scientific claims as well.

Your extreme materialism is showing. Better zip that up.

His post might be thoughtful, but it is intellectually dishonest.

Theists believe that a god exists, and that god takes a personal interest in the say to say workings of the universe. Agnostics insist that they need scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God, and dismiss anything less than absolute proof as mere prattle. Evidence that indicates the existence of God does exist, there just is no conclusive proof that can be tested scientifically. That doesn't bother me very much because I also understand that the same thing can be said about the existence of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The strange thing is no one ever demands scientific proof that Aristotle existed when his name comes up, yet they do when we start talking about God.

That means that Aristotle is trying to claim he believes, but that he still wants proof, yet he is willing to believe in the existence of an ancient philosopher, and use his name as a nom de plume, without demanding that science prove Aristotle existed.

I don't believe he actually understands what he is saying.

 

[ima]

The earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date back to within a century of the time it was written, the earliest manuscript fragments of Caesar's Commentaries date back to 1000 years later. There is more evidence for the historical accuracy of of the New Testament than there is for our understanding of the Gallic wars. Feel free to deny that Caesar invaded Germany and get branded as the idiot you clearly want to prove you are.

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

The earliest parts date to 100 years or so AFTER they were SUPPOSED to have been written? And some parts date much later, like 250 years or more after they were SUPPOSED to have been written? That to me is a bunch of hearsay and made up stories. Also, we're usually talking about fragments aren't we? So someone had to invent to missing parts?
The only thing that this proves is that the NT was written long after the events were supposed to have happened, and because large parts were missing, a lot of it was made up after the fragments were discovered, making the whole thing a bunch of fairy tales.
I rest my case.

The second bolded line about Caesar: Caesar may have invaded germany before that book was written, but you actually have no proof that Caesar actually wrote about it because the earliest manuscript was dated 1000 years after the facts. So you don't know if 1000 years later, they knew about the invasion and wrote about it as though it was Caesar writing.

Man, did you just fall off a turnip truck?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

I thought Aristotle's post was thoughtful and sincere.

Though I profoundly disagree with a number of his sentiments, he nevertheless zeros in on an important truth: there's no argument to be had that proves God's existence or His nonexistence, and the barrier of faith, with regard to the belief in a specific Deity, is insurmountable . . . though the arguments for the existence of God, Whoever, objectively speaking, that might be, have the logical edge.

Correction: Metaphysical claims are not unknowable, for they are rational constructs very well known by those who apprehend them. They just don't readily lend themselves to the calculi of science. Metaphysics is an indispensable discipline, an inescapable necessity of human consciousness and action. You just think you understand its nature correctly.

All scientific theories rest on one metaphysical presupposition or another. Though their criteria are different, metaphysics and mathematics are to a significant extent inseparable.

The word "unknowable" is careless, misleading. The proper way to look at metaphysical claims is that they are not empirically falsifiable. Nevertheless, they are among the various assumptions we make everyday in our lives in order to live them. Some metaphysical assumptions work out just fine. Others don't.

But then the same has been true about a good many scientific claims as well.

Your extreme materialism is showing. Better zip that up.

Agnostics insist that they need scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God, and dismiss anything less than absolute proof as mere prattle. Evidence that indicates the existence of God does exist, there just is no conclusive proof that can be tested scientifically. That doesn't bother me very much because I also understand that the same thing can be said about the existence of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The strange thing is no one ever demands scientific proof that Aristotle existed when his name comes up, yet they do when we start talking about God.

Correct! Laugh-out-loud funny! Although, in my experience, it's the atheist who typically "dismiss[es]" the exegesis of the empirical and logical supports for God's existence "as mere prattle."

Nicely done.

 

[ima]

I thought Aristotle's post was thoughtful and sincere.

Though I profoundly disagree with a number of his sentiments, he nevertheless zeros in on an important truth: there's no argument to be had that proves God's existence or His nonexistence, and the barrier of faith, with regard to the belief in a specific Deity, is insurmountable . . . though the arguments for the existence of God, Whoever, objectively speaking, that might be, have the logical edge.

Correction: Metaphysical claims are not unknowable, for they are rational constructs very well known by those who apprehend them. They just don't readily lend themselves to the calculi of science. Metaphysics is an indispensable discipline, an inescapable necessity of human consciousness and action. You just think you understand its nature correctly.

All scientific theories rest on one metaphysical presupposition or another. Though their criteria are different, metaphysics and mathematics are to a significant extent inseparable.

The word "unknowable" is careless, misleading. The proper way to look at metaphysical claims is that they are not empirically falsifiable. Nevertheless, they are among the various assumptions we make everyday in our lives in order to live them. Some metaphysical assumptions work out just fine. Others don't.

But then the same has been true about a good many scientific claims as well.

Your extreme materialism is showing. Better zip that up.

Agnostics insist that they need scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God, and dismiss anything less than absolute proof as mere prattle. Evidence that indicates the existence of God does exist, there just is no conclusive proof that can be tested scientifically. That doesn't bother me very much because I also understand that the same thing can be said about the existence of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The strange thing is no one ever demands scientific proof that Aristotle existed when his name comes up, yet they do when we start talking about God.

Correct! Laugh-out-loud funny! Although, in my experience, it's the atheist who typically "dismiss[es]" the exegesis of the empirical and logical supports for God's existence "as mere prattle."

Nicely done.

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Nice to know I can occasionally contribute to the destruction of keyboards and monitors.

By the way, hasn't anyone ever told you not to drink coffee around a computer?



Those references are not in the Bible, they are in a single translation of the Bible, the first official government sanctioned translation in history. I don't know about you, but I expect anything a government does to be screwed up.



I pretty much ignored this before because you are talking about doctrine, not the Bible.

The Hebrew word translated as hell in the KJV is sheol. Sheol basically means grave. I don't know why the KJV used hell here, nor do I care, I am not defending the KJV translation, I am defending the Bible, which uses the word שְׁאוֹל.



The Christian theory? What Christian theory are you talking about? The anthropologists who study the scrolls tell me that the Essenes were a sect of Jewish believers. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not contain a fragment of the Gospel of Mark because they predate Christ by 3 to 400 years.



You want the Dead Sea Scrolls to be about a sect that didn't appear until 300 years after they were written? Why?



I win because I stick to facts, unlike you. If I ever came across anyone that tired to tie the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christianity I dismissed them without further reading.

I wasn't trying to establish anything of the kind. Goodness. So, you are unaware the theory that was promoted by the two men mentioned above. I get it. I figured if you researched the Dead Sea Scrolls you would know about it. Most do. My mistake. Moving on.

Now, I REALLY don't know what you're on about. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an extremely significant find because they are the earliest known copies of biblical documents and provided a greater perspective of the Second Temple Judaism. I just don't know that has to do with the authenticity of the Bible. Some texts bear close correlation with later translations, while others have dramatic differences. Anyway, I have never questioned the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My main mistake was in assuming that you were pushing the same tired notion of NT content that I've heard many times.

In any event, I am troubled at your insistence that I do not use facts. I have really done my best to stick to exactly the facts. If I failed to establish a proper context, well, I'm only human. However, when you say that I lie or not use facts, please point out where. You have a tendency to just say "liar" and "stupid" and "unfactual," you never point out where. The theory of Christian content is a fact. I didn't make it up, I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. I have not presented a single bit of information that is not based on fact.

I didn't say the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the authenticity of the bible, I said they provide evidence that the Old Testament has remained unchanged over the years. The manuscripts found among the scrolls contain portions of the Old Testament that are remarkably similar to the Masoretic Text, which were considered the most accurate because it is the oldest known copy of the Old Testament previous to 1947.

I think if you go back and read my posts you will see that every time I accused you of lying I tried to put it in context. I didn't accuse you of lying in this post, I was just trying to explain why I choose to ignore ridiculous theories about the Gospel of Mark being among the scrolls. I vaguely recall seeing it years ago, but it is absolute bunk, so I dismissed it.

Fair enough. I think our interaction here has run its course. I myself am fascinated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. I clearly misunderstood your intent when you initially brought them up.

Sections of them match the Masoretic Text, while others, particularly Exodus and Samuel, contain some dramatic differences in both language and content, at least according to Oxford Companion to Archeology.

I'm not trying to split hairs here. I appreciate the Judaic tradition that continued to record the OT. But that fact that there are both remarkable similarities in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic texts, accompanied by dramatic differences seems to make such a claim pretty inconclusive. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm simply challenging your claims. There is a good deal of animosity going between you and I that, in my opinion, is unnecessary. I'm wrapping up in this thread because I don't see anything more to be gained from continuing. I'm sure we'll cross paths plenty more, as you seem to insist on this adversarial relationship. True to some extent, I suppose, I just enjoy interacting with you for some perverse reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

The earliest parts date to 100 years or so AFTER they were SUPPOSED to have been written? And some parts date much later, like 250 years or more after they were SUPPOSED to have been written? That to me is a bunch of hearsay and made up stories. Also, we're usually talking about fragments aren't we? So someone had to invent to missing parts?
The only thing that this proves is that the NT was written long after the events were supposed to have happened, and because large parts were missing, a lot of it was made up after the fragments were discovered, making the whole thing a bunch of fairy tales.
I rest my case.

The second bolded line about Caesar: Caesar may have invaded germany before that book was written, but you actually have no proof that Caesar actually wrote about it because the earliest manuscript was dated 1000 years after the facts. So you don't know if 1000 years later, they knew about the invasion and wrote about it as though it was Caesar writing.

Man, did you just fall off a turnip truck?

Not true.

The earliest manuscripts date to about 100 years after the accepted date of Jesus's death. Every part of the New Testament dates to within 70 years of the crucifixion, and some parts date to within 20 years of his death. The techniques used to date these manuscripts are the same ones used to date other manuscripts from the same period, none of which have manuscript fragments dating back earlier than 900 BC.

There are writings contemporary to the New Testament that date to the same period which mention almost every single verse, giving further veracity to the accuracy of the New Testament. For some strange reason that makes absolutely no sense, the only ancient document where there is an dispute about the accuracy and dating using the approved scientific methods is the Bible. Can you explain that? Why doesn't anyone doubt the accuracy of the Iliad?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Agnostics insist that they need scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God, and dismiss anything less than absolute proof as mere prattle. Evidence that indicates the existence of God does exist, there just is no conclusive proof that can be tested scientifically. That doesn't bother me very much because I also understand that the same thing can be said about the existence of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The strange thing is no one ever demands scientific proof that Aristotle existed when his name comes up, yet they do when we start talking about God.

Correct! Laugh-out-loud funny! Although, in my experience, it's the atheist who typically "dismiss[es]" the exegesis of the empirical and logical supports for God's existence "as mere prattle."

Nicely done.

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to.

Interesting language. Sounds akin to a deist viewpoint.

 

[newpolitics]

Correct! Laugh-out-loud funny! Although, in my experience, it's the atheist who typically "dismiss[es]" the exegesis of the empirical and logical supports for God's existence "as mere prattle."

Nicely done.

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!

 

[ima]

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

The earliest parts date to 100 years or so AFTER they were SUPPOSED to have been written? And some parts date much later, like 250 years or more after they were SUPPOSED to have been written? That to me is a bunch of hearsay and made up stories. Also, we're usually talking about fragments aren't we? So someone had to invent to missing parts?
The only thing that this proves is that the NT was written long after the events were supposed to have happened, and because large parts were missing, a lot of it was made up after the fragments were discovered, making the whole thing a bunch of fairy tales.
I rest my case.

The second bolded line about Caesar: Caesar may have invaded germany before that book was written, but you actually have no proof that Caesar actually wrote about it because the earliest manuscript was dated 1000 years after the facts. So you don't know if 1000 years later, they knew about the invasion and wrote about it as though it was Caesar writing.

Man, did you just fall off a turnip truck?

Not true.

The earliest manuscripts date to about 100 years after the accepted date of Jesus's death. Every part of the New Testament dates to within 70 years of the crucifixion, and some parts date to within 20 years of his death. The techniques used to date these manuscripts are the same ones used to date other manuscripts from the same period, none of which have manuscript fragments dating back earlier than 900 BC.

There are writings contemporary to the New Testament that date to the same period which mention almost every single verse, giving further veracity to the accuracy of the New Testament. For some strange reason that makes absolutely no sense, the only ancient document where there is an dispute about the accuracy and dating using the approved scientific methods is the Bible. Can you explain that? Why doesn't anyone doubt the accuracy of the Iliad?

That's 2, maybe even 3 generations later. Therefore, it's totally made up. Plus, it's only fragments, so someone filled in the blanks.

 

[ima]

Correct! Laugh-out-loud funny! Although, in my experience, it's the atheist who typically "dismiss[es]" the exegesis of the empirical and logical supports for God's existence "as mere prattle."

Nicely done.

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

You THINK you see god's fingerprints, you don't actually see them, otherwise you could show them to me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its subject . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced." Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The earliest parts date to 100 years or so AFTER they were SUPPOSED to have been written? And some parts date much later, like 250 years or more after they were SUPPOSED to have been written? That to me is a bunch of hearsay and made up stories. Also, we're usually talking about fragments aren't we? So someone had to invent to missing parts?
The only thing that this proves is that the NT was written long after the events were supposed to have happened, and because large parts were missing, a lot of it was made up after the fragments were discovered, making the whole thing a bunch of fairy tales.
I rest my case.

The second bolded line about Caesar: Caesar may have invaded germany before that book was written, but you actually have no proof that Caesar actually wrote about it because the earliest manuscript was dated 1000 years after the facts. So you don't know if 1000 years later, they knew about the invasion and wrote about it as though it was Caesar writing.

Man, did you just fall off a turnip truck?

Not true.

The earliest manuscripts date to about 100 years after the accepted date of Jesus's death. Every part of the New Testament dates to within 70 years of the crucifixion, and some parts date to within 20 years of his death. The techniques used to date these manuscripts are the same ones used to date other manuscripts from the same period, none of which have manuscript fragments dating back earlier than 900 BC.

There are writings contemporary to the New Testament that date to the same period which mention almost every single verse, giving further veracity to the accuracy of the New Testament. For some strange reason that makes absolutely no sense, the only ancient document where there is an dispute about the accuracy and dating using the approved scientific methods is the Bible. Can you explain that? Why doesn't anyone doubt the accuracy of the Iliad?

That's 2, maybe even 3 generations later. Therefore, it's totally made up. Plus, it's only fragments, so someone filled in the blanks.

The fact that the earliest copies of Caesar's Commentaries date to 900 years after he died does not prove he did not write them. You are throwing out hundreds of years of historical research in an attempt to discredit one book. Unless you have some evidence that the entire discipline of textual criticism is completely bogus you need to stop arguing because you are just repeating talking points and lies of conspiracy nuts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As an agnostic, I see no proof of god, scientific or otherwise. You say evidence does exist, I personally don't see it, so what you got anyways as "evidence"?

As for Aristotle, no one is basing their whole existence on him or what he says, so your analogy is meaningless. Please try again.

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

You THINK you see god's fingerprints, you don't actually see them, otherwise you could show them to me.

People were seeing fingerprints for decades before anyone actually started classifying them and accepting them as evidence, maybe you should actually look instead of just seeing smudges on the window.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its subject . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced." Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting perspectives.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

C. S. Lewis never saw the fingerprints, and wasn't even looking for them, but ended up unable to deny God.

 

[ima]

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

You THINK you see god's fingerprints, you don't actually see them, otherwise you could show them to me.

People were seeing fingerprints for decades before anyone actually started classifying them and accepting them as evidence, maybe you should actually look instead of just seeing smudges on the window.

Wtf are you talking about "fingerprints"?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God's fingerprints are all over the cosmos. I see them, and you claim not to. I'm fine with that. But I'll shoot you a link to an article I'm editing once it's up on my blog. In the meantime, check this out: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another. This one peripherally relates to the empirical and logical supports.

You THINK you see god's fingerprints, you don't actually see them, otherwise you could show them to me.

People were seeing fingerprints for decades before anyone actually started classifying them and accepting them as evidence, maybe you should actually look instead of just seeing smudges on the window.

Precisely.

From my blog:

To be fair, Descartes never intended to cloud our awareness of the innate, natural precepts of divine origin or diminish the stature of nature's God. But he failed to anticipate that the reduction of the basis for knowledge (from man's intuitive, pre-analytic apprehension of cosmic order, which entails his moral and aesthetic senses) to the first impressions of a detached introspection would lead to the subjective relativism of post-modern popular culture—the untutored, inner musings of human reasoning making baby talk about the world beyond. He also failed to recognize that his basis for knowledge could not withstand the logical implications of an empiricism likewise detached from divine revelation . . . and he never imagined the subsequent nihilism of a Darwinian naturalism.​

Prufrock's Lair: The Fuzz in Descartes' Belly Button

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You THINK you see god's fingerprints, you don't actually see them, otherwise you could show them to me.

People were seeing fingerprints for decades before anyone actually started classifying them and accepting them as evidence, maybe you should actually look instead of just seeing smudges on the window.

Wtf are you talking about "fingerprints"?

It's what common folk used to see before they got all uppity and stuff.