Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[H3LL]

Great book the bible.

Jesus, possibly the most important character in the tale, and it can't decide when he was born (an important event) or when he died (an important event).

Accuracy?...Hahahahahhahahah!

.

 

[wahrheit]

{snip}

Repeating logical fallacies doesn't make them true...however many times you repeat them.

You keep on using logical fallacies in almost every post.

Why is that?

Because DOC thinks that this place works like church?

Those pesky fallacies do not bother him in the least, apparently. I think he considers himself some kind of preacher who has to "put the word out there". Logic, of course, would be too much of an obstacle while fulfilling that "mission".

 

[Lothian]

But there is evidence for the God of the Bible:

Historical evidence from Christian and non-Christian sources of the existence of Christ who according to mainline Christianity is God in the flesh. And whose birthday will be celebrated (in 5 days) around the world and is a national holiday in most of Europe and the Western hemisphere.

Even presuming Christ existed, there could only be evidence for the god of the bible if you have evidence that this christ person was the god in the bible in the flesh.

You state there is evidence. Would you mind sharing it with us.

 

[Lothian]

Posted by DOC
Isaac Newton, the inventor of Calculus,

As mathematician, Newton invented integral calculus, and jointly with Leibnitz, differential calculus.

No. see Cleons post

He also calculated a formula for finding the velocity of sound in a gas which was later corrected by Laplace.

By corrected do you mean that Newton was wrong ?

Newton made a huge impact on theoretical astronomy. He defined the laws of motion and universal gravitation which he used to predict precisely the motions of stars, and the planets around the sun.

Calculations now known to be wrong

Using his discoveries in optics Newton constructed the first reflecting telescope.

Using James Gregory’s design from 25 years earlier

Why would Newton write 300,000 words on the "Book of Revelation" not to mention his extensive work on the "Book of Daniel" if he didn't believe in the bible?

because barking up the wrong tree was something he was adept at. You know he spent 25 years studying alchemy.

Don’t get me wrong he was obviously a clever man, but he was wrong about so much. Citing his belief in an obscure form of christianity does not make it worthy of serious study.

 

[Slimething]

Um...actually, it's not all that troubling. Roman history was written by the educated elite. Jesus and his followers were not part of that elite. Most Roman Citizens ignored what was going on in and around Jerusalem at that time. It wasn't until later, MUCH later, that Christianity got to be popular enough to be written about, at which time they had to shoehorn the comments in.

Think of it this way. There's a TON of local bands around, right? 99% of them are never heard of outside their local environs. One day, one of them makes it big. They get heard by the AOR guy, their song on MySpace catches someone's ear, something external happens that gets them a larger audience. That's when they get press. Were they doing stuff before that? Sure, it's just that TPTB never noticed them.

It's the same thing with Jesus. Chances are, there was a Jesus of Nazareth wandering around. HE may have even done some of the stuff ascribed to him in the gospels. The Romans, however, didn't see him as important enough to comment about because he was background noise. When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in the 300's, though, it became REALLY important, and the backfilling began in earnest (not to say that it wasn't going on before, just at that point, it became an Imperial interest)

Thanks for pointing that out and this is exactly why lack of evidence cannot be taken as evidence that jesus did not exist. Still, this fella was not an entertainer but, per the bible, a potent political force. This jesus was somene who could, and did, cause the Romans themselves a bit of trouble so I do find it strange that no contemporaneous records exist.

By the time the records did begin, jesus wore a cape and leaotards.

 

[joobz]

But right now, I'm simply not going to waste my time. I know you're completely incapable of conceding a point, even when it's been firmly established that it's wrong.

This is something I do not understand. IT seems that he believes by avoiding admission of error, he won't actually be wrong.

For some time, I couldn't figure out why he was so adverse to being wrong. But considering DOC's love of the argument, Newton was a christian, he must believe that being right in one area means you are right in everything else. conversely, if he admits error in one thing, he must admit error in everything.

 

[DOC]

Even presuming Christ existed, there could only be evidence for the god of the bible if you have evidence that this christ person was the god in the bible in the flesh.

You state there is evidence. Would you mind sharing it with us.

Well if you believe in the historical person of Jesus who was written about by historians Tacitus and Josephus then this historical person said "He and his father (God) were one. Jesus also said before Abraham I was, clearly saying He was pre-existent. Now that in itself might not prove much but then there was a thing called the Resurrection. We already know how that event changed the former Christ denier Peter as was pointed out in this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633


Now, regarding the Resurrection of Christ there is this evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

and as I've pointed out before but some might not have seen it. Its is evidence like the above that was probably the reason that famous Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the three-volume "History of Rome" said the following:

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath give us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26


And all the "fulfilled prophecy" with regard to Jesus as was mentioned in this site also gives support that the historical figure of Jesus Christ was exactly who He said He was:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

 

[wollery]

*sigh*



This is just getting pathetic and circular DOC.

We refute a claim, you try to back it up with a webpage that's either completely irrelevant, or produced by a totally biased source. We refute that, you bring in a point of argument that was refuted last month in another thread. We point that out, and rerefute it, you post another link to a webpage that doesn't actually say what you claim. We point this out, you post yet another link. This is refuted, you post yet another claim that has already been refuted 3 times in 2 different threads. This claim is rererererefuted. You make an appeal to authority from someone whose field of expertise is so far outside the field they're commenting on that it's in another continent. We point this out, you sound incredulous that someone so accomplished in one field could possibly be dismissed as unknowlegeable in any other field. We refer you, yet again, to the argument from authority, and point out the stupidity of that person in other fields. You post even more links to webpages that have been refuted at least 5 times in 3 threads. We rerererererererererererefute them. And so on ad nauseum.


Come on DOC, who the hell do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself that is.

Nobody, not even a spectator biased towards your opinion, could possibly take anything you have to say seriously at this point. You're making a complete fool of yourself, and everyone else is getting bored.

 

[DOC]

We refute a claim, you try to back it up with a webpage that's either completely irrelevant, or produced by a totally biased source. We refute that, you bring in a point of argument that was refuted last month in another thread. We point that out, and rerefute it, you post another link to a webpage that doesn't actually say what you claim. We point this out, you post yet another link. This is refuted, you post yet another claim that has already been refuted 3 times in 2 different threads. This claim is rererererefuted. You make an appeal to authority from someone whose field of expertise is so far outside the field they're commenting on that it's in another continent. We point this out, you sound incredulous that someone so accomplished in one field could possibly be dismissed as unknowlegeable in any other field. We refer you, yet again, to the argument from authority, and point out the stupidity of that person in other fields. You post even more links to webpages that have been refuted at least 5 times in 3 threads. We rerererererererererererefute them. And so on ad nauseum.

Your post has a lot of generalized statements with no post numbers to back them up. Please say what exactly was refuted and either how it was refuted or in what post number it was refuted. Anybody can say we did this and we did that.

And how come its OK for atheists to accept that some unusual Energy exploded and formed the matter to make 10 billion trillion stars simply because many scientists they don't know theorized it happened. Isn't that an appeal to authority. The scientists can't explain the laws of physics that made this happen and yet many in here accept it because others say so.

 

[Lothian]

Well if you believe in the historical person of Jesus who was written about by historians Tacitus and Josephus then this historical person said "He and his father (God) were one. Jesus also said..........

I am asking for evidence not opinion. I am sorry to inform you that even Jesus's opinion is not evidence.

I would also point out that even if their was evidence for the resurrection that would still not be evidence for the God of the bible; your claim.

 

[H3LL]

Your post has a lot of generalized statements with no post numbers to back them up. Please say what exactly was refuted and either how it was refuted or in what post number it was refuted. Anybody can say we did this and we did that.

And how come its OK for atheists to accept that some unusual Energy exploded and formed the matter to make 10 billion trillion stars simply because many scientists they don't know theorized it happened. Isn't that an appeal to authority. The scientists can't explain the laws of physics that made this happen and yet many in here accept it because others say so.

You don't need post numbers to refute logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies do not need refuting. They are refuted by the very fact that they are logical fallacies.

You even manage to get logical fallacies into the above quote.

If it is a logical fallacy... It in nonesense... Not worth anything... Not an argument... Useless... Wrong... Faulty... Incorrect...

DOC, you have been repeatedly asked to read up on logical fallacies.

Most people here are very familiar with most, if not all logical fallacies.

You have been given links to concise definitions and explanations of logical fallacies.

You are not going to slip a logical fallacy past anyone here.

You use a logical fallacy and it destroys your argument..immediately.

Repeating logical fallacies doesn't make them true...however many times you repeat them.

You keep on using logical fallacies in almost every post.

Why is that?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3122797&highlight=arnold#post3122797

And a number of others that a search of R&P for "arnold" brings up.

 

[wollery]

Your post has a lot of generalized statements with no post numbers to back them up. Please say what exactly was refuted and either how it was refuted or in what post number it was refuted. Anybody can say we did this and we did that.

And anyone can read your threads and see it for themselves. In fact, I invite any lurkers to do so, you'll get a very good insight into the mind of DOC.

And how come its OK for atheists to accept that some unusual Energy exploded and formed the matter to make 10 billion trillion stars simply because many scientists they don't know theorized it happened. Isn't that an appeal to authority. The scientists can't explain the laws of physics that made this happen and yet many in here accept it because others say so.

Because the evidence (which I myself have examined, and used) shows beyond any doubt that the Universe is expanding. Following back in time it follows that the Universe used to be a lot smaller, and far enough back was all contained within one point. There's more evidence for it than just that, the Cosmic Microwave Background for instance, was predicted by Big Bang cosmology, and is the afterglow of the explosion.

And it isn't appeal to authority. The evidence is available for all to see on the internet. Appeal to authority is when you cite someone's credentials in an attempt to make anything they say appear more valid, despite there being no evidence to support it.

 

[joobz]

Now, regarding the Resurrection of Christ there is this evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

and as I've pointed out before but some might not have seen it. Its is evidence like the above that was probably the reason that famous Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the three-volume "History of Rome" said the following:

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath give us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26


And all the "fulfilled prophecy" with regard to Jesus as was mentioned in this site also gives support that the historical figure of Jesus Christ was exactly who He said He was:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

Answer this:
How is it to you when some guy says, "I've seen all the evidence and am convinced Jesus resurection is real," but doesn't actually give any of the evidence, you take this as proof/evidence of Jesus' divinity?

However, when I present you with a clear, mechanistic refutation of your hyperoxia=long life argument. And this mechanistic explanation was substantiated by several research articles, you called this an "appeal to authority and never admitted error on your part,

 

[joobz]

Your post has a lot of generalized statements with no post numbers to back them up. Please say what exactly was refuted and either how it was refuted or in what post number it was refuted. Anybody can say we did this and we did that.

Well you asked.
You gave an appeal to authority which provided no evidence simply some other guys assertion. This man is a christian looking for confirmation of his belief and is unlikely to be truly honest about such matters. Especially considering that his language is such hyperbole.

The posts that refuted this claim for pretty much these reasons are
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:373
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:379
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:380
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:392
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:142
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:143
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:144
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:145
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:148
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:151
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:152
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:154
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:169
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:232
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:21
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:22
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:26
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:27

Not once, in any of these posts have you actually presented ANY OF THE EVIDENCE that Thomas Arnold claims is so convincing. Knowing you, you would have presented it if it existed. The fact that you fail to do so is clear enough admission to me that you do not have such evidence and neither did Thomas Arnold.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Joobz, I figured my reply to his "response" would be enough (apparently he's still not realized there is a seach forum.. er thread... er forum function for the thread forum where each of his repeated appeals to Thomas Arnold could easily been uncovered and shown for the baseless B.S. they were, but your reply definitely deserves a Awwww, Snap!.

 

[kmortis]

/me picks up joobz and marches him down he street while US and Cleon throw tickertape onto him.

 

[wollery]

Thanks Joobz, I couldn't be bothered to do it myself.

DOC, the very same thing can be done for any and all of your statements and weblinks, with pretty similar results.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well you asked.
You gave an appeal to authority which provided no evidence simply some other guys assertion. This man is a christian looking for confirmation of his belief and is unlikely to be truly honest about such matters. Especially considering that his language is such hyperbole.

The posts that refuted this claim for pretty much these reasons are
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:373
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:379
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:380
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:392
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:142
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:143
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:144
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:145
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:148
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:151
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:152
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:154
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:169
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:232
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:21
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:22
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:26
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:27

Not once, in any of these posts have you actually presented ANY OF THE EVIDENCE that Thomas Arnold claims is so convincing. Knowing you, you would have presented it if it existed. The fact that you fail to do so is clear enough admission to me that you do not have such evidence and neither did Thomas Arnold.

This post reminds me of something.

 

[joobz]

Why do I get the feeling that this post will be convieniently ignored?