Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[paximperium]

Well people have to realize that if you're going to say something negative about me or my posts there is a good chance I'm going to make you explain yourself so you might as well do it the first time and save everyone, including yourself, a lot of time.

Why are you doing that? Are you actually interested in learning or just being annoying?

 

[realpaladin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Funny how the argument about the strawman almost becomes one in itself.

 

[Hokulele]

Well people have to realize that if you're going to say something negative about me or my posts there is a good chance I'm going to make you explain yourself so you might as well do it the first time and save everyone, including yourself, a lot of time.

Right.

You "compared" two points of view by calling one of them absurd. You gave no reasons for why you considered one to be absurd, other than your own incomprehension, and then proclaimed the other point of view must be correct. Hence, argument from incredulity (or ignorance, which describes your mindset much more accurately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Now, since you currently seem to be so keen on discussing cosmology (although what that has to do with the New Testament is anyone's guess). Care to take me up on that challenge? I have repeatedly proven that I have no problem with reading your material. Why are you afraid of mine?

 

[Hokulele]

And I repeat no matter how many Randi rule violating words you use nowhere does she address my point that it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief sytems. I ask Hokulele is it logical or not logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems? If she really addressed the point I made, I wouldn't have to ask that question.

Argument from ignorance. Why do you call it absurd? Do you even understand the topic?

 

[joobz]

And I repeat no matter how many Randi rule violating words you use nowhere does she address my point that it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief sytems. I ask Hokulele is it logical or not logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems? If she really addressed the point I made, I wouldn't have to ask that question.

The problem is DOC that you only present two examples, and there are multiple origin stories. Disproving one doesn't prove the other.
If i said, "the moon is either made of cheese or made of farts. Since farts are gas, this is a less logical view. Therefore the moon is made of cheese." That would be a false dichotomy. Becuase both of these ideas can be wrong.
All your argument amounts to is dismissing big bang and reflexivly claiming genesis true. This is faulty logic.

But to go one step further, the step that hokulele took, Your only reason for dismissing the big bang theory is your lack of understanding of the data for it. This is an argument from incredulity and is simply an indefensible position.

 

[Hokulele]

Now, I was going to give you an example of a strawman for your argument, but I seriously can't. I honestly can't think of an argument that would be easier to defeat than the one you presented.

Well, a strawman for the cosmology argument would be something like, "10 billion stars, planets, and iguanas all came from something smaller than a pea".

 

[DOC]

And I repeat no matter how many Randi rule violating words you use nowhere does she address my point that it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief sytems. I ask Hokulele is it logical or not logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems? If she really addressed the point I made, I wouldn't have to ask that question.

Argument from ignorance. Why do you call it absurd? Do you even understand the topic?

The topic is modern science says approx. 10 billion trillion stars and all the "space" in the universe came from something smaller than one atom. You tried to explain that and gave a simplified explanation in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3933986#post3933986

I've read your explanation and I still don't understand it and doubt that 99.9 percent of the people in the world understand the specifics of it either. So I stand by my belief that it is harder to believe that 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (all by random unintelligent forces) then it is to believe the historical figure Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God.

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe but then claim they believe 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (even though they don't understand how) well then I guess that is the way it is.

 

[paximperium]

So I stand by my belief that it is harder to believeUNDERSTAND that 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (all by random unintelligent forces) then it is to believe based on fantasy the historical figure Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God.

False. I corrected it for you. Don't blame others for your willful ignorance. Your inability to understand something like the Big Bang but blindly believe that magic brought some mythic figure back from the dead continues to be Argument from Ignorance.

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe but then claim they believe 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (even though they don't understand how) well then I guess that is the way it is.

Yes, that's the way it is. Science and a whole host of observations and evidence support the Big Bang theory. Your resurrection story on the other hand is based on heresay and delusional fantasy.

 

[six7s]

And I would estimate at least 99% of the world's population do not understand how the current scientific theory that the 10 billion trillion stars blah-blah-blah

DOC, you are making wild and seemingly off-topic arguments based on incredulity

If your incredulity stems from a stubborn refusal to consider alternatives to your beliefs, then nothing will satisfy you - so don't ask

However, if your incredulity stems from an incapacity to comprehend then that is your problem - one that you and you alone can remedy, by thinking and studying - in this latest tangent - the Big Bang theory, which is simply a model (devised and refined by some of the greatest minds in history) that is the most consistent with what we currently know about the reality of the behaviour of the Universe.

Please note:

• The BBt isn't a belief system - you don't have to accept some mystical force, you don't have to undergo some secret initiation to understand it - all you have to do is think, critically.

• You are under no compulsion to accept the model - reality isn't subject to a popularity vote.
  
  However, before you can reject the model, you have to understand it. To do otherwise would be ludicrously silly
  
  If you don't understand some of the complexities, there are simple steps you can take

Literally at your finger-tips, you have access to the greatest, most in-depth repository of information the world has ever known, where ALL you could ever want to know about the Big Bang theory is freely available

Now, please stop prevaricating and start addressing the many, many questions you have conveniently ignored

 

[kmortis]

I've read your explanation and I still don't understand it and doubt that 99.9 percent of the people in the world understand the specifics of it either. So I stand by my belief that it is harder to believe that 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (all by random unintelligent forces) then it is to believe the historical figure Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God.

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe but then claim they believe 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (even though they don't understand how) well then I guess that is the way it is.

I disagree. Let's face it, you can look out at the night sky and see that there's a vast number of stars. 10 billion or 100,000, it matters not to the casual observer. And, given that most, if not all, people have seen a mature creature come from a small creature (e.g. an oak from an acorn) the concept of big things coming from small things is not a foreign idea.

Someone coming back to live after being dead for a day and a half (aka Jesus' REALLY bad weekend) isn't a common occurrence. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no one ever has directly observed a dead body coming back to life.

The account of Jesus' resurrection is less plausible than the Big Bang, just on the surface. If you want to get a reasonable consideration, you're going to have to provide some seriously high quality evidence. Not Biblical passages. Not Lee Strobel. Not Jay Seklow. None of your normal crap. Try researching if there are other cases of humans returning to life in modern medical literature (i.e. cases where the death is verifiable, and the return to life is verifiable as well). See if it's even plausible. Only then should you try to convince this crowd. Until then, I'm going to continue my drinking game for all yuor posts.

 

[six7s]

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe but then claim they believe 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (even though they don't understand how) well then I guess that is the way it is.

Yes - that is the way it is

Time to move on... you have many unanswered questions to address

 

[Belz...]

And I would estimate at least 99% of the world's population

And from which dark hole did you pull this estimate, exactly ?

do not understand how the current scientific theory that the 10 billion trillion stars in the universe (which I saw on one show today is more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world) all came from a singularity smaller than one atom.

No, but I'd "estimate" that if you explain the whole expansion thing, they won't have much choice but to see that it follows that it did.

And not only this but all the "space" in the universe also came from this same singularity. You can't tell me you can explain that in a way that any normal person can understand. If you can, explain it right here.

No need. You just did.

 

[Belz...]

And I repeat no matter how many Randi rule violating words you use

So now you're saying that pointing out logical fallacies is useless ? No wonder you can't debate properly.

I've read your explanation and I still don't understand it and doubt that 99.9 percent of the people in the world understand the specifics of it either.

Since when is your understanding required for it to work ?

 

[Belz...]

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe

Oh, heavens, no. I think it's easy to believe, as evidenced by the fact that hundreds of millions of people believe it. What it is, however, is impossible.

 

[Belz...]

DOC, you are making wild and seemingly off-topic arguments based on incredulity

If your incredulity stems from a stubborn refusal to consider alternatives to your beliefs, then nothing will satisfy you - so don't ask

However, if your incredulity stems from an incapacity to comprehend then that is your problem - one that you and you alone can remedy, by thinking and studying - in this latest tangent - the Big Bang theory, which is simply a model (devised and refined by some of the greatest minds in history) that is the most consistent with what we currently know about the reality of the behaviour of the Universe.

Please note:

• The BBt isn't a belief system - you don't have to accept some mystical force, you don't have to undergo some secret initiation to understand it - all you have to do is think, critically.

• You are under no compulsion to accept the model - reality isn't subject to a popularity vote.
  
  However, before you can reject the model, you have to understand it. To do otherwise would be ludicrously silly
  
  If you don't understand some of the complexities, there are simple steps you can take

Literally at your finger-tips, you have access to the greatest, most in-depth repository of information the world has ever known, where ALL you could ever want to know about the Big Bang theory is freely available

Now, please stop prevaricating and start addressing the many, many questions you have conveniently ignored

Nominationated.

 

[wollery]

DOC, if you really want to understand how the Universe began I suggest you read and digest the following;

FORD:
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?

ARTHUR:
Well probably not

FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.

ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.

FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -

ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!

FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.

ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -

FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…

ARTHUR:
Why?

FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.

ARTHUR:
Backwards?

FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.

ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?

FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.

Or maybe not. But posting that was way more fun than trying to explain Big Bang theory to someone who doesn't want to understand.

 

[X]

Is DOC familiar with the connotations of E=mc²?

I ask, because he seems to be having a hard time understanding how all the matter in the universe could occupy so small a point.

 

[Marcus]

Hmm, maybe I should offer another challenge. I will read and comment on a website or book of your choice if you agree to read and comment on Simon Singh's Big Bang. If you agree, I will start another thread for this.

Ah, the KK challenge. Doc isn't strictly limited to preaching like KK is, so there is a chance he can be persuaded to read a book. I guess I'd better skip up to the current page and find out what happened.

 

[joobz]

The topic is modern science says approx. 10 billion trillion stars and all the "space" in the universe came from something smaller than one atom. You tried to explain that and gave a simplified explanation in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3933986#post3933986

I've read your explanation and I still don't understand it and doubt that 99.9 percent of the people in the world understand the specifics of it either.

So you believe that because you don't understand something, that means 99.9% of the people in the world don't understand it.This argument is only valid if you assume that you are smarter than 99.9% of the population.
That's arrogance beyond measure. Nothing in your posts suggest your intelligence is in the top 0.1% of the population.


Moving beyond that gross example of hubris, just because people don't understand a scientific concept, doesn't mean that concept is invalid. I doubt most people don't understand the mechanisms of antibody production, but that doesn't stop vaccinations from working. I doubt most people understand Donnan equilibrium, but that doesn't stop nerves from sending electrical impulses.

So I stand by my belief that it is harder to believe that 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (all by random unintelligent forces) then it is to believe the historical figure Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God.

There is no evidence for a resurrection to have ever occured. The bible gives multiple accounts of it, yet it's never been shown in real life. In other words, I see no reason to believe a story of ressurection as being true.

However, we have evidence from the cosmic background radiation pointing toward a big bang.

So your claim is simply false. It isn't harder to believe the big bang over the ressurection.

If people complain that the Jesus story is too hard to believe but then claim they believe 10 billion trillion stars and all the space in the universe came from something smaller than one atom (even though they don't understand how) well then I guess that is the way it is.

Well, if some people believe that little gnomes in the belly make a person sick instead of believing the germ theory of infection, well then I guess that is the way it is.

This type of statement is actually an indictment against the people who refuse to believe in evidence.

 

[Paulhoff]

The topic is modern science says approx. 10 billion trillion stars and all the "space" in the universe came from something smaller than one atom.

And has if at that size it was make of atoms.

Paul