Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Of course not. I am telling you that no reputable scholar in the field of New Testament studies will claim that the New Testament is unreliable. There are plenty of people who find it reliable who don't, in the end, accept it's theological claims. But no one who has looked at the evidence says that it is unreliable. It is, plainly, a stupid claim. If you make it, then I know that you have either never looked at the evidence and so are just speaking out of your bias or I know that you have not looked at it honestly and you are on par with Holocaust deniers. If you're in the former camp, then what you need is an education, and we can talk. If you're in the latter camp, I feel absolutely no need to try to justify my beliefs to such an obviously irrational person. Forget trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother wasting my time with you in that case. Pearls before swine and answering a fool according to his folly and such things.

Jac,
I wanted run this by you. Just because at first blush someone might take this as a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I ran into this issue on another forum, and the other side was essentially stating that no reputable scholar in this field would state that the bible was historically reliable,and that Jesus was not a true historical figure. In this case, it was a NTS fallacy. When I challenged him on supportive documents, he actually had the audacity to mention Bart Erhman. BE, of course, rejects the theological claims in the Bible, but certainly views the Bible as a reliable, historical document and of course sees Jesus a 100% legit historical figure. I just want to clarify to our skeptic that what you are saying is that there is no reputable scholar in this field of study who rejects the reliability of the Bible as a historical document.

GenericAtheist wrote:The solution you suggest is that I just need to study more and accept that the arguments against God and Jesus have been sufficiently debunked. I see this as akin to asking me to repeat something enough until I believe it. Should God and Jesus not be more obvious? The holocaust is real because you can visit the concentration camps, you can see pictures of the event happening, and there exist people who were there to confirm it. Those who deny the holocaust go to great lengths to try and prove a point that is very poorly supported. Your position is that Jesus had supernatural powers and walked the earth 2,000 years ago. The only writings about those powers are contained within a book where the the contents were essentially voted in by the church. The arguments and evidence for a supernatural Jesus are very similar to the arguments for Mohammad, but those for Mohammad are somehow not convincing. I cannot visit the supernatural Jesus. I cannot find arguments for Jesus that aren't also used for false prophets. The effects of Jesus and a trinitarian God are not testable. Whose position more closely resembles that of a denier?

First of all you are again blending your arguments. There is no question that the Bible records Jesus as having performed miracles. Whehter you believe this or not is your choice. Whether or not the Bible is a reliable record of actual figures, times and places in history is not debatable. I wasn't alive during the holocaust and we are less than one generation from losing every eye witness to this event. Let me ask you, will the holocaust become any less real of a historical event?
Comparing the arguments for Jesus and Mohammad are..., well...., not comparable. And as you said, repeating things over and over doesn't make them so.
Your opinion about the church voting in the contents is a terrible distortion. Period. Again, perpetuating that lie over and over doesn't make it suddenly true.

jlay wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Of course not. I am telling you that no reputable scholar in the field of New Testament studies will claim that the New Testament is unreliable. There are plenty of people who find it reliable who don't, in the end, accept it's theological claims. But no one who has looked at the evidence says that it is unreliable. It is, plainly, a stupid claim. If you make it, then I know that you have either never looked at the evidence and so are just speaking out of your bias or I know that you have not looked at it honestly and you are on par with Holocaust deniers. If you're in the former camp, then what you need is an education, and we can talk. If you're in the latter camp, I feel absolutely no need to try to justify my beliefs to such an obviously irrational person. Forget trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother wasting my time with you in that case. Pearls before swine and answering a fool according to his folly and such things.


Jac,
I wanted run this by you. Just because at first blush someone might take this as a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I ran into this issue on another forum, and the other side was essentially stating that no reputable scholar in this field would state that the bible was historically reliable,and that Jesus was not a true historical figure. In this case, it was a NTS fallacy. When I challenged him on supportive documents, he actually had the audacity to mention Bart Erhman. BE, of course, rejects the theological claims in the Bible, but certainly views the Bible as a reliable, historical document and of course sees Jesus a 100% legit historical figure. I just want to clarify to our skeptic that what you are saying is that there is no reputable scholar in this field of study who rejects the reliability of the Bible as a historical document.

Quite right, J. Note the part I underlined. I would hope that would make clear to GE that "unreliable" doesn't mean "true in all it claims." I frankly doubt that GE has head half of what he claims to have given his demonstrated failure to grasp the most entry level points of interest with which we are all conversant, but on the off chance that he has been telling the truth, then I should expect him to understand that the issue of reliability is primarily the historicity of the texts. BE is one of many scholars who recognize the NT texts as reliable, historical documents but who reject its theological claims.

As to the Scotsman, that's why I emphasized the qualification of scholars in the relevant field.

A better accusation would be that I've committed a rather standard ad populum or appeal to authority here. But I think the points remain all the same.

vanquish29 wrote:there are objective truths and logical absolutes that the probability is true, you didnt comment on frank tipler saying that physics and math and the design of the universe is proof of Gods existence. your presupposing the probability to be false without any good arguments.

christian response

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.
3.

Actually Vanquish the man who originally made these questions is agnostic mathematician Doctor David Berlinski, intelligent design advocate and senior fellow at the discovery institute . Ravi zacharias has quoted berlinski a few times
He's an awesome guy
I believe he once said he couldn't pray.
I believe it could have been from from some of his relatives (maybe his dad )
Who had been in the holocaust.
Lets pray for him that one day he will be able to pray again.

Oh , he's also the author of a book called the devils delusion to counter Dawkins book called the God delusion
Very very sharp guy.

There is one problem that comes to my mind with the calculations in the OP. Have you read those verses of the Bible in their original Old Testament context, rather than the New where they are being cited as evidence for the messiah? Oftentimes it would appear in the context of the original book that the subject of those "prophesies" is not the coming messiah, but something else, such as the suffering of Israel, the "servant". It seems to me that many of them were labeled prophesies in retrospect to create support for who they were propping up as the messiah.


I made a thread about it when I was struggling with it back in 2008: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=32939

Seraph wrote:There is one problem that comes to my mind with the calculations in the OP. Have you read those verses of the Bible in their original Old Testament context, rather than the New where they are being cited as evidence for the messiah? Oftentimes it would appear in the context of the original book that the subject of those "prophesies" is not the coming messiah, but something else, such as the suffering of Israel, the "servant". It seems to me that many of them were labeled prophesies in retrospect to create support for who they were propping up as the messiah.

I made a thread about it when I was struggling with it back in 2008: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=32939

Jewish commentaries pose that Isaiah 53 refers to the Nation of Israel (all its people) as the suffering servant however the context of the scriptures do not support this point of view. In the Old Testament, chapter divisions as we have them were unknown. Chapter 52 of Isaiah comes before chapter 53 and says:

Isa 52:10 The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
Isa 52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there, Touch nothing unclean; Go out of the midst of her, purify yourselves, You who carry the vessels of the LORD.
Isa 52:12 But you will not go out in haste, Nor will you go as fugitives; For the LORD will go before you, And the God of Israel will be your rear guard.
Isa 52:13 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.
Isa 52:14 Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man And His form more than the sons of men.
Isa 52:15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.

Verse 10 makes reference that YHWH will send forth his own arm so all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of God. This is a Trinitarian proof text and something that testifies of Jesus whom traditional Jewish theologians reject.

Verse 12 again is another Trinitarian proof text in that YHWH will go before his people and the Elohim of Israel will be their rear guard. This shows that the Arm of the Lord shown in verse 10 will be the one mentioned in verse 13 as one specific unique person, not a nation of people. Then in verse 13 and 14 describes this servant as a single person coming from the Jewish people. The one mentioned in verse 10 and identified in verse 12. Verse 14 states clearly states this servant as a single person, not a nation of people that was marred, but only one person disfigured more than any other who in verse 15, will sprinkle his blood on many nations and open understanding.

Then we move into Isaiah 53:1-12 and the first three verses we see that it is the arm, branch, hand of the Lord is revealed in human form to humanity which traces back to Isa 52:10, Zec 3:8, Zec 6:12 and Jeremiah 33:15. Next, Jeremiah 23:5, 6 actually identifies this Branch as YHWH our Righteousness.

This Branch will offer himself as the sacrifice that astonishes and opens personal understanding toward God. This is speaking only about one unique one of a kind person, not an entire nation, who releases salvation, not from political oppression but rather salvation from sin which come from the human heart just as Isaiah 53:10, 11, 12 speaks of. Without the remission of sin, oppression will always remain. A whole nation of people cannot do this because as it is written:

Isa 42:8, "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."

Isa 48:11, "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another."

To be many people, a nation as suffering servants, violates the principles God sets forth about himself just mentioned. In fact Isaiah 42:1-8 verifies the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 52 and 53 and how to identify Him and in verse 8 declares who this servant is.

Isa 42:1-8, "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 "He will not cry out or raise His voice, Nor make His voice heard in the street. 3 "A bruised reed He will not break And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice. 4 "He will not be disheartened or crushed Until He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."

Isa 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it, 6 "I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness, I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You, And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, 7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the dungeon And those who dwell in darkness from the prison. 8 "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."

Deut 18:15 and Deut 18:18-19 also identify the servant as one person, not a nation as well too.

So the first century, medieval, and modern Jewish theological interpretations of Isaiah 53 referring to an entire nation as the suffering servant must be held in suspect as based on anti-Jesus bias against Jesus being the Branch mentioned in Jeremiah 23:5,6

Bible reference quotes are from the NASB
-
-
-

The mathematical probability is an approach which from time to time I find interesting, but I can take it or leave it, because it tends to lean heavily on intellectualism. Maths can be used to describe a lie, does not make it gospel. Nevertheless I like the amazing probabilities, and I cannot see how some of the prophecies relate to Christ.

So does the Spirit say things that are irrational to us? Apparently all the time.

I sometimes wonder whether God has allowed the Bible to be a mix of allegories, metaphors, poetry, song, facts etc, to make it a stumbling block for the analysts, the wise, the proud, fanatics and the bone lazy, and whether accepting it is like accepting a real person, "I don't always get you, but hey you're a person and deserved to be loved and accepted."

Are we meant to be irrational and go by feelings alone?

I came across this dilemma early in life and am confronted with it regularly, when I don't understand something in the Bible, which is nearly always, I forget that I understand the bulk of it, things that have dawned on me over time, so I cannot claim to have worked it all out myself, and yet God expects me to exercise my intellect whenever I read it.

The Bible is like a piece of fruit, it has a sour skin which needs to be peeled, then the main part is delicious and edible, then there is the seed, hard and inedible, but if you bury it in your fertile mind, it germinates later. And yes its rational.