Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

The following is simple but true. Asking a question does not support the subject’s lack of substance but it does prove a lack of knowledge of the subject. If I say to you as we walk through the woods, “run” and you instead of running you respond, “why”, you have opened yourself up to an instantaneous learning experience that you had no idea until that point could or would occur. On the other hand, If sometime in your life you witness a 1200 lb. Tree limb fall in front of you, you now realize it is good to be cautious in the woods regardless of whether you know of what to predict. Think about your statement for a second; “…some of our assumptions are so well established and have been so consistent with later results that it would be almost inconceivable for them to be false”. If we assumed them, they would have to be conceivable.

I’m not really sure what you mean by your last statement. When we first assumed them, it may have been conceivable that they were false assumptions. I was saying that for many of the assumptions, so many independent pieces of evidence in so many different fields have been consistent with them, that it seems absurdly unlikely that they would be false. For example, we assume that an experiment conducted under one set of circumstances can give us insight into real world circumstances, which can never be identical in every way to the experiment; we assume that there is some regularity. Of course it may be possible that there is no real regularity, and it was just by luck that the real world has behaved as our experiments predicted. Maybe I really am just as likely to float in the air if I jump off a building as I am to float. Although I guess this is still theoretically conceivable, my point was that some assumptions have been so consistent with other observations that it seems absurdly unlikely that they are wrong.

I refer you to the following links for you to check out. I might have mentioned Hawkings before but bare with me on that.

Stephen Hawking ends his immensely popular book, A Brief History of Time, with several questions about what physics can tell us about “The Mind of God”.

“…We are now ready to answer Hawking’s questions about the Mind of God. It is the wave function of the universe. The wave function of the universe is in super space that is literally beyond space-time but it guides the evolution of our expanding universe in cosmic time. If we add the back-reaction of living matter on the wave function of the universe then we have a mechanism for communion with God.”

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/godphys.html

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

http://www.vatican.va/img/riga_int.jpg

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Research.php

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth08.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/darek_barefoot/dangerous.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode…sm/design.html

Alright, I’ll take a look at the links. I’ll probably have some comments or questions about them, but I’ll wait until I’ve had the chance to finish reading them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I appriciate your offer. Very good.

I knew you’d appreciate it.

Seriously, you will get to that realization but it may not be until you have reached another level of maturity. That is not to say you are not mature for your age, but rather maturity in life’s experiences. God is Life and for some it is inconceivable to imagine what life can bring us until we have experienced it. Sometimes God is the cause of that experience. All you are asked to do is pursue this as you have science. You will learn of the falling tree limbs safely if you remain open to the possibilities of the unknown.

You’re right, I have no idea what the future will bring.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I actually thought of some of these myself, but I don’t agree that they could be strong evidence against Christianity. Of course I’m not an expert on how historians verify the authenticity of these things, so maybe some of my criticisms are unfounded and you can enlighten me.

The finding of the Tomb of Mary or Jesus,

Someone else mentioned that too. I’m not really convinced that we could discover a tomb and be sure enough that it was Jesus’ body for that to be strong evidence against Christianity. I would be interested in your thoughts on my response:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5452302&postcount=834
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5457065&postcount=844

The finding of historically authenticated writings from any of the apostles expressing acknowledgment of fraud in their teachings,

Is there a good way of identifying a writing as authentic and be sure that it wasn’t a forgery created in an attempt to discredit the Church?

Reasonable evidence that they had something to gain of value in their day other than their own torture and deaths,

I don’t think this would be any evidence against Christianity; it would merely weaken one argument for Christianity which I never thought was that strong to begin with.

Substantiated rationalization as to why Jesus would pursue antagonizing not only the roman authorities but also the very people He expressed the desire to save, thus turning both sides against Him in His attempt to save man while knowing sealing His fate.

How do you think something like this could be substantiated by archeological means?

Evidence that another single man has also fulfilled all of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Evidence that this same other man has also prophesized with complete accuracy the events that would take place throughout and at the time 2000 years into the future including those events which violated His Church, and the corruption of society, the wars and so on.

I guess that would provide evidence for Judaism and against Christianity. Since Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecies that the Jews expected their messiah to fulfill, someone who fulfilled all the prophecies would seem more likely to be the true messiah (yes, I realize that Jesus will supposedly fulfill the rest during the Second Coming). But if both Judaism and Christianity were wrong, this is not evidence we would expect to discover.

Just a few for now…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist;5446892:

The idea of having to alter my life is not troubling me at all. I think in many ways would embrace it. I don’t think it would be that hard to alter my life. All I can give you is my word, but I really do think that if I ever found a good argument that the Christian God exists, I would happily live as I thought God wanted me to. I just try to examine arguments carefully so I do not adopt a false religion.

I believe you. If you believe in the people and places as you said it is a start. Now, how much do you know about human nature?

I know some, but there’s a ton I don’t know. Some things I probably understand pretty well and other things I am probably completely clueless about.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

http://www.vatican.va/img/riga_int.jpg

I’m guessing you meant to copy a different link. I’ve stared at it for a little while and I still can’t figure out how it’s supposed to be evidence of God.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sometimes it is good to consider several avenues of thought to come to a reasonable point of probabilities.

Fair enough.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

“Some cynics would say these independent doctors and scientists are merely collaborating in an exercise in maintaining the powerful image or “brand” of Lourdes. Yet this committee, which has since grown in size and sophistication, will now spend years checking individual cases, with up to 250 different doctors interviewing and testing a patient, before a claimed cure will be accepted as not explainable by science.
Even at the end of this exhaustive process, the case is then turned over to an independent international medical committee, where another set of doctors and scientists re-examine the case and conduct further tests. Then the phenomenon is finally submitted to a vote among the investigating scientists - as to whether any other explanation other than a miracle is plausible. For example, was the condition accurately diagnosed in the first place?
The final part of the process occurs when the Church is invited to decide whether it wants to pronounce that, since the cure is inexplicable scientifically, it is therefore a sign of God’s intervention.”

That’s pretty much how I understood things to be. What I originally said was: “The doctors do not assess the possibility, merely whether they know of any natural explanation. There are occasionally people who recover from even severe illnesses for no known reason, regardless of whether religion was involved.” From what I’ve read it does seem that the doctors base their decisions on whether an explanation is known. Of course some diseases are not yet fully understood, so someone may recover from them for an unknown reason regardless of whether there was any divine intervention. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that our medical knowledge is complete and that any recovery that cannot be fully explained by medical science must have been caused by something supernatural.

mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2002/MoreOnLourdesMiracleMSCure.html
Jean-Pierre Bely, who was then 51 years old, married, the father of two children, who was suffering from a severe form of multiple sclerosis. He was cured instantly, completely, and lastingly during a pilgrimage to Lourdes.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/ZLOURDES.HTM
Two additional;

olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml

I read those articles, as well as some others about his case and multiple sclerosis in general. From what I’ve read, it seems like there is a lot about MS that is still poorly understood. It is somewhat common for people to have their condition improve or worsen without an obvious cause.
Multiple sclerosis: a guide for the newly diagnosed:

The high degree of variability in MS makes the design of clinical trials difficult. In any individual, the disease may go through seemingly spontaneous remission and worsening which are unpredictable in occurrence, severity, and duration; no two individuals experience the same problems in the same ways. Spontaneous stabilization of symptoms could easily be confused with a drug effect even if the drug is having no impact whatsoever.

The only way you can find assurance of this is to look into who the people are that do the investigatons. You would have a hard time convincing anyone including yourelf how so many people specialized in so many fields, believers and non-believers in God and anyone welcome to take part in any investigation provided they have the credentials to prove they can offer credible opinion could all be bias or deceitful.

I have no reason to think that the independent group of doctors and scientists is biased. The main issue I have with purported medical miracles is that in order for them to be proof of God you have to assume that anything that medicine currently cannot fully explain must have been caused by God.

 

[HereticAmI]

EvilAtheist:

Why don’t I simply reduce the debate to its most elemental form. Is it: potential field or Potential Field? I would simply suggest that the existence of what we call “consciousness” rather implies Potential Field. I will otherwise allow you to ponder just why it is that the carbon in those rocks has no self-awareness while the carbon in my brain does have such self-awareness. Isn’t carbon simply carbon? Where’d the carbon in my brain get the chutzpah to think that it’s so special?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

EvilAtheist:

Why don’t I simply reduce the debate to its most elemental form. Is it: potential field or Potential Field? I would simply suggest that the existence of what we call “consciousness” rather implies Potential Field. I will otherwise allow you to ponder just why it is that the carbon in those rocks has no self-awareness while the carbon in my brain does have such self-awareness. Isn’t carbon simply carbon? Where’d the carbon in my brain get the chutzpah to think that it’s so special?

Could you clarify what you mean by potential field versus Potential Field? I am unfamiliar with that terminology.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Here is a thought you can contemplate on; People in general seek to satisfy what they perceive to be success through monetary or materialistic gain. But no matter what a person earns and no matter what a person buys it will never satisfy. Industry feeds on this principle. This is the first principle in manufacturing of goods such as automobiles and the reason styles change so frequently. When the merchandise lasts longer than is economically reasonable for the manufacturer to generate desired profits, it is easy to raise interest and purchases by tickling people’s pride and ego. If they didn’t there would be no instilled drive (pardon the pun) of the purchasing public to compete with “John next door”. It is extremely ratre for a person to be satisfied with a current state of finances or ownership. Yet those who have the most appreciation for family and God over materialism are the one’s most often satisfied with their lives.

I agree with you. I do not think that fulfillment lies in material possessions. I’ve never been one to think that I’d be happy if only I had the latest gadget. What I cherish most are the relationships I have with people.

 

[twb1621]

I’m not really sure what you mean by your last statement. When we first assumed them, it may have been conceivable that they were false assumptions. I was saying that for many of the assumptions, so many independent pieces of evidence in so many different fields have been consistent with them, that it seems absurdly unlikely that they would be false. For example, we assume that an experiment conducted under one set of circumstances can give us insight into real world circumstances, which can never be identical in every way to the experiment; we assume that there is some regularity. Of course it may be possible that there is no real regularity, and it was just by luck that the real world has behaved as our experiments predicted. Maybe I really am just as likely to float in the air if I jump off a building as I am to float. Although I guess this is still theoretically conceivable, my point was that some assumptions have been so consistent with other observations that it seems absurdly unlikely that they are wrong.

Alright, I’ll take a look at the links. I’ll probably have some comments or questions about them, but I’ll wait until I’ve had the chance to finish reading them.

“I’m not really sure what you mean by your last statement.”
Something must be conceivable before it can be assumed. Man cannot conceive of the supernatural, which is why some people such as yourself have such difficulty. But do you understand at all why God doesn’t pop in on each person who can’t believe without proof?

“ I was saying that for many of the assumptions, so many independent pieces of evidence in so many different fields have been consistent with them, that it seems absurdly unlikely that they would be false.” This is exactly my point to you and why I say you are selective without just cause in this case. Apply the underlined of your sentence to the existence of God. Lets face it; you like many others have a very difficult time accepting God without proof. That doesn’t make you a bad person, as Saint Thomas was as skeptical as you when it came to the resurrection of our Lord. But what you DON’T want is to be confronted by God before you make a real choice to believe and accept or refuse. In gathering the knowledge of God you will realize He is real and not before then because you do seek proof. That is also where you will find yourself open to receiving the grace necessary for true faith and from that your relationship with Him. The existence of God is unquestionable and it appears the time is coming when the last warning will leave no doubt but it will not be pleasurable to learn through that. Sincerely, I realize this means nothing to you at this point but it will during your lifetime.
Yes, check the links out….

 

[twb1621]

How would you identify the body as Jesus’? We can’t exactly DNA test it. Even if there was something identifying the grave of that of Jesus, how would you be sure that it was the same Jesus (as Jesus was a common name and archeologists have found dozens of tombs of people named Jesus from that time period)? Even if we could be sure that it was Jesus’ tomb, how would we know that the Jews didn’t later bury someone else in Jesus’ tomb in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity? So I think that even if we discovered Jesus’ tomb, I don’t think we could have good enough evidence that the body was Jesus’ for it to constitute strong evidence Christianity.

And I can’t think of any other possible discoveries which would disprove Christianity. So I don’t think that the lack of evidence disproving the biblical story is any evidence for it.

We know from numerous archeological discoveries including those of early Greek, Christian and Hebrew heritage as well as recorded history that any of the people held in high positions of respect were buried along with numerous articles not only for their journey (depending on their beliefs) but articles that belonged to them personally and from others as a sign of respect and affection from those who loved that person buried there. With the respect that Jesus and Mary received, it would have been disrespectful not to follow this practice to some degree, yet nothing was found to identify this site. One could say they wouldn’t to protect the bodies but then the bodies would not have been buried in a tomb if that were the case. These things along with the finding of the scholars in their individual fields of study completely discount this site. Besides, the site had been discovered years before by other archeologist and was determined not to be related to Jesus Christ or Mary.

 

[twb1621]

According to the article linked to, they identified it as Paul’s body because bone
If Christianity was false, it seems like there would be only one possible discovery that could give evidence against Christianity, and even that is pretty dubious. So I think that regardless of whether Christianity is true, the chances are low that archeologists would discover good evidence against it. That’s why I don’t think it’s fair to use the lack of archeological evidence falsifying Christianity as evidence for the truth of Christianity as the person I was responding to seemed to imply.

I agree completely. I judged that God probably does not exist, and you judged that God does exist. But even if we’re confident that we made the best decision based on what we know, there’s always a chance that we will find out something in the future which causes us to change our minds.

But in this case you see what you do? Instead of looking at all the findings that are accumulating in support of Christianity you disbelieve with the premise that they couldn’t find proof against it. That is in opposition to your acceptance of other theories and conceivable assumptions.

 

[twb1621]

I actually thought of some of these myself, but I don’t agree that they could be strong evidence against Christianity. Of course I’m not an expert on how historians verify the authenticity of these things, so maybe some of my criticisms are unfounded and you can enlighten me.

Someone else mentioned that too. I’m not really convinced that we could discover a tomb and be sure enough that it was Jesus’ body for that to be strong evidence against Christianity. I would be interested in your thoughts on my response:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5452302&postcount=834
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5457065&postcount=844

Answered seperately

Is there a good way of identifying a writing as authentic and be sure that it wasn’t a forgery created in an attempt to discredit the Church?

Yes there is all though I am not a specialist in this area, I have looked into these and know it requires the research of several scholars in their individual fields and with their testing procedures such as dating and such but they can and have determined not only the periods of these documents but if an entire document was written by one author or tampered with or if something is suspected of being fraudulently added at another time or by another writer. They also cross reference with other documents and available information. There is a great deal involved but it actually is fascinating.

I don’t think this would be any evidence against Christianity; it would merely weaken one argument for Christianity which I never thought was that strong to begin with.

It is reasonable to assume and should be conceivable that no man would subject himself to such a fate unless there was something well worth the risk.

How do you think something like this could be substantiated by archeological means?

We are always finding items of records and documents including land transactions and transfers, arrest documentation and narrations from Roman historians.

I guess that would provide evidence for Judaism and against Christianity. Since Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecies that the Jews expected their messiah to fulfill, someone who fulfilled all the prophecies would seem more likely to be the true messiah (yes, I realize that Jesus will supposedly fulfill the rest during the Second Coming). But if both Judaism and Christianity were wrong, this is not evidence we would expect to discover.

He fulfilled all the prophecies made that the earthly Messiah could and the rest will come. There can be no coincidence with the years separating the prophecies from their occurrences and the number of prophecies involved.

 

[twb1621]

I know some, but there’s a ton I don’t know. Some things I probably understand pretty well and other things I am probably completely clueless about.

Look into it in regard to survival and nature human response and instinct sometime. It tells alot and its interesting and true based on what I have experienced in my past profession.

 

[twb1621]

I’m guessing you meant to copy a different link. I’ve stared at it for a little while and I still can’t figure out how it’s supposed to be evidence of God.

Just to provide you some idea of the church’s involvement in sciences.

 

[twb1621]

That’s pretty much how I understood things to be. What I originally said was: “The doctors do not assess the possibility, merely whether they know of any natural explanation. There are occasionally people who recover from even severe illnesses for no known reason, regardless of whether religion was involved.” From what I’ve read it does seem that the doctors base their decisions on whether an explanation is known. Of course some diseases are not yet fully understood, so someone may recover from them for an unknown reason regardless of whether there was any divine intervention. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that our medical knowledge is complete and that any recovery that cannot be fully explained by medical science must have been caused by something supernatural.

If you have 100,000 people who have suffered a specific permanent paralysis over a given period of time and the only one who recovers within minutes or an hour after visiting Lourdes, you have to accept this in your theory of assumption and conceivability or you are denying your principles.

I read those articles, as well as some others about his case and multiple sclerosis in general. From what I’ve read, it seems like there is a lot about MS that is still poorly understood. It is somewhat common for people to have their condition improve or worsen without an obvious cause.

quote]

And be eating and walking within an hour of their visit? Get me one please.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Well I’m not sure I’d agree that all people naturally seek happiness in principle. I’m unsure exactly what you mean by “naturally seek happiness in principle”.

Let me try to help.

I think that there are some people, such as those born with anencephaly, who do not seek happiness.

Part of the standard treatment,
For a baby born with anencephaly,
Is to provide “comfort measures.”
Is this for the sake of the baby?

But I’d agree that for some definition of “normal”, all normal people probably do seek happiness. I seek happiness, and I see other people react to circumstances in similar ways. I’ve talked to people who give happiness as the reason that they did certain things. I guess it’s possible that everyone besides me is a robot programmed to deceive me, but I think the simplest and most likely answer is that other people also seek happiness. I think the observational evidence is sufficient.

So,
If you see other people seek something,
You believe you should seek it also?
Why do you seek happiness?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Just to provide you some idea of the church’s involvement in sciences.

No, my point was that the link you sent me wasn’t a link to an article or anything. It was just a link to a tan image (not even an image of something). I thought I’d mention this in case there was a real article you had meant to copy instead. I know how easy it can be to make a mistake when you’re copying in a long list of links.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Let me try to help.

Alright.

Part of the standard treatment,
For a baby born with anencephaly,
Is to provide “comfort measures.”
Is this for the sake of the baby?

I don’t know. But from what I’ve read, such babies are not conscious and cannot feel pain.

So,
If you see other people seek something,
You believe you should seek it also?
Why do you seek happiness?

No, I don’t believe I should seek something just because other people do. I seek happiness because it makes me happy. It’s something that I think humans naturally desire.

If you were looking for a different type of answer, maybe you can clarify what you were getting at. Were you talking about the morality of seeking happiness, or something else entirely?