Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Bradski]

Hmm… so, if I said, “70,000 people watched the Patriots defeat the Seahawks in Super Bowl 49”, would you really respond, “hmm… 70,000 sounds like too much a nice round number; clearly, the assertion is false”…?

If you were trying to convince me of something that would, in the first instance, be difficult to believe, then using a nice big number like 500 would be suspicious. Giving an approximate number, rounded up for convenience, for an event I have no reason to disbelieve, for which there is no benefit in you in my actually believing it, in not.

But you knew that anyway.

That isn’t the argument, Bradski.

The argument is…

They REALLY believed it, gave a detailed and rational accounting for why they believed it, were willing to die instead of betray or deny the person who made the accounting possible in the first place, so THEREFORE we have a compelling set of reasons for thinking it is quite possibly true.

That’s just a little weird. You say that that isn’t the argument and then go on to list exactly why I say it is. What you are saying is that if we can find someone prepared to die rather than deny that the bible confirms that the world is 6,000 years old, then ‘we have a compelling set of reasons for thinking it quite possibly true’.

Excuse me repeating myself, but that is abject nonsense.

Except, that isn’t what Paul was getting at, now was it?

It’s exactly what he was getting at.

He said he saw it.
Big deal…
No, seriously. He did. Lots of people did…
How many.
Oh, 4 or 5.
Bid deal…
No, wait. I remember. It was maybe a hundred.
Wow, seriously?
Yeah, and you can go to them and get a first hand account. Heck, you will probably run into several of them and you can corroborate the story of one by talking to several others.
OK, got any names and addresses?
Well, I’m not sure…let me check. There must be something. I’ll get back to you.

And meanwhile the second guy passes this on and maybe a hundred becomes ‘a hundred or so’ and then it’s passed on as ‘at least a hundred’ and then ‘a couple of hundred’, ‘a few hundred’ etc. Who is it keeps such accurate records of all these people. Did Paul have an actual list? Did he get an eye witness report from each one and keep a running total? Nah, of course he didn’t.

Now, do you see the point of the number 500, Bradski?

Yep.

When this messiah was killed (as he usually, eventually was), his followers merely went home, licked their wounds.

No one ever claimed that this messiah rose from the dead. It wasn’t the modus. It was the thinking.

Except…

if it actually happened.

My messiah is better than your messiah.
Yeah? Bet he’s not. Mine can turn water into wine.
Big deal. Mine can cure the sick!
Huh. Cure the sick? Mine can raise the dead.
Well, mine…well…
Yeah, beat that buddy.
OK, right. Mine can come BACK from the dead!

And all this guy’s mates are face planting, thinking: Oh no. How are we going to pull this off.

I think we have a problem here in that there is a distinct lack of imagination
in the first instance and a lack of understanding of human nature in the second.

What is being claimed is that people make up a LIE, proclaim it as true, then are tortured because of this allegation (with authorities assuming it to be true)…and* no one simply says, “Ok. I lied!”*

That is contrary to all experience, knowledge, common sense, logic, and reason.

Indeed it is. But it is plainly obvious that people will die for what they believe is true. Not for what they believe is a lie. They will sacrifice themselves (and others, including family members) for charismatic leaders, ideologies and religions. That has no bearing on the veracity of the ideas for which they died.

Hence the argument re the apostle’s martyrdom is worthless.

 

[Bradski]

The entire point of the Gospels was to show that Jesus was God. Those little miracle stories were intended to demonstrate what constituted “unbelievable” to those in the vicinity who could attest to them and answer the questions of skeptics.

I think Pocaracas covered this. But what you said above is precisely the point. I could have included that word for word in any of my arguments.

By the way, as Habermas points out in the first link, ancient historians such as Tacitus, Seutonius and Herodotus (aka "the Father of History) all included miracle stories in their accounts. I suppose, you want to throw out the historical validity of all their accounts because of the included miracles, then?

Wheat from chaff, Peter. I’m sure you don’t discount everything Plato said just because he mentions Zeus now and then. You seem able to separate fact from fiction quite easily there.

Through His self-revelation, the God that is has identified that He doesn’t want mindless robots – or those who only believe because they’ve seen; rather, He wants us to love Him freely.

This is one of the more bizarre arguments. God reveals Himself to all who believe, yet He doesn’t wan to reveal Himself to anyone. God is a personal God but will not appear in person.

Really, now: if the all-powerful Creator of the Universe popped into your dining room for tea today, would you really believe in Him… or just be scared out of your wits and follow Him out of fear?

God knows exactly how my mind works. If He wanted to convince me of His existence then He would know EXACTLY how to do it (popping into my living room wouldn’t actually do it). There’s no ifs, buts or maybes about this. If He wanted me to believe in Him just as you believe in Him then He knows how to go about it.

He hasn’t, so I think it’s safe to say that He has decided not to.

Are you saying that you possess the charism of omniscience?

For that is what we must logically conclude if you are asserting that you know, with great certainty, that in the history of every single human person that’s ever existed, not a single miracle has ever occurred.

I don’t think anyone is saying that no miracle has ever occurred. Just the same as no-one is saying that God definitely does not exist.

All you have to do is find one that is totally convincing and that would be the end of it. As you say, you only need the one. But, and this is obviously the point, there isn’t even one.

The problem that you have is that for every claimed miracle that is shown to be spurious, the less convincing are any of your arguments. If I keep turning up for every claim and spend time investigating it and every single claim is found to be invalid, then it is only reasonable to start to think that ALL claims are going to have the same outcome.

If you think that miracles must happen because of the law of large numbers, then aliens are amongst us and Elvis lives. You open yourself up to any and all charlatans and snake oil merchants.

The problem, it seems to me, is that you are arbitrarily discounting everything that God does in nature as a miracle and then demanding that he show you some other cheap trick in order to believe in “miracles.”

Isn’t that what miracles are? Walking on water, water into wine, loaves and fishes. All cheap tricks reported in such a way as to convince the illiterate and uneducated masses of the time that something special was going on. It’s the equivalent of producing a signed playing card from a sealed box.

Was it the Ace of clubs?
Wow, truly He IS the Son of God!

What God does ‘in nature’ is, by definition, natural. A miracle, by definition, is super natural, therefore not ‘in nature’. The thing is, there aren’t any instances of verifiable events happening outside of nature. That is, supernatural. That is, miracles.

You have to offer some sort of evidence that people lied. 1st person narrative that says he made it up. Name of a witness who said that his friend lied.

Otherwise, what you are asserting: people lied about the Resurrection of Christ is a…
faith-based assertion.

So if we ask for the names and addresses of those 500 people Paul mentioned that had seen God, are they going to be forthcoming? Do you have any eye witnesses for the loaves and fishes? There were 5,000 there. Must be some.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you’re right…

My favorite 3 words on this forum.

I await…
I know of people who waited all their lives and died waiting…

No. There is no waiting. Those who wait, lose.

You can’t find a girl to marry if you wait at home.

Get up, ask her for a date. Get to know her.

Too skeptical for our own good, others may call us…

Yes. I suppose there is such a thing as being “too skeptical”.

However, a healthy skepticism is never a bad thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed it doesn’t… it results in: therefore, at best, one of them is true.

Indeed.

Which one?

Well, I think the one where God dwells among us, redeems us through his death and is resurrected has a pretty good shot at being the best one.

The original geographical distribution of religions suggests that they are all sparked by local phenomena, sufficiently different from each other to have a high chance at all being equally manufactured, instead of all imparted by the same God, or gods.

This is nonsense. Geography may make you believe a certain religion as a child, but when you examine the evidence, you should come to the correct belief, regardless of your geographical location.

Are you telling me that the message is imperfect as in incapable of convincing even the most skeptical person?

I’m not sure you really want to present this as a good argument against Christianity, poca.

Let’s say you have some anti-vacciners. They are the most skeptical people in the world regarding the benefits of vaccinating your children.

You present them with the science.

They say, “Your info is incapable of convincing me to vaccinate my children.”

What’s your conclusion?

Is something wrong with the message, or with the receiver?

 

[PRmerger]

An agenda suggests the desire to mold other people’s minds.
People controlling other people.

LOL!

I take it that you are against education?

Did you not attend university because it was simply people desiring to mold other people’s minds and control you?

On the one hand, there’s this God that can do it in the best possible way to get each and every individual to acknowledge his existence… this is what he wants, is it not? This is why it’s considered very bad for someone not to believe, right?

What makes you think God hasn’t done it in the best possible way?

Let me assure you: He absolutely did.

One of the few unforgivable sins, according to some.

Well, since you’re on a Catholic forum, best to talk about the Catholic understanding of “unforgivable sins”.

Incidentally, there is only one unforgivably sin, poca. Do you know what it is, without seeking succor with Fr. Google?

On the other hand, people telling stories to other people, writings those stories to tell even more people… and whoever believes, believes… whoever doesn’t believe, is a loss to God.
Which method seems more adequate?

It’s been quite satisfactory for 2000 years.

And just like there’s anti-vaccciners, who disbelieve despite the copious amount of data, there’s always going to be the religious version of anti-vacciners, who disbelieve despite copious amounts of evidence.

Doesn’t indict the data.

It simply indicates the receivers of the data are lacking in good discernment.

Parts of the bible can be true… most likely, many parts are true.
The parts with magic and gods in them… not so much.

“I don’t believe in miracles, therefore where the Bible talks about miracles, it’s false”
“The Bible talks about false things, therefore I don’t believe in miracles”.

And round and round goes the man with an agenda.

Clearly, he forces nothing. Almost as if he’s not there!
However, the believers, sometimes… they try their damnest.

#beggingthequestionagain

 

[PRmerger]

Present one that’s a real knocker! go ahead… I may not be aware of it.

Here’s a good one.

Faith came first… belief in the supernatural came first.

Yes.

Then you examined the evidence… with a believer mindset. It’s not easy to shake out such belief when analyzing the evidence, is it?

No, poca. I undertook study of Christianity using evidence and came to the most reasonable conclusion.

It’s like you learned that Washington DC is the capital of the US from Mrs. Caltigarone, your 2nd grade teacher.

You had faith in her.

So you believed her.

Then, years later, you went to DC to examine if it was true what Mrs. Caltigarone said was actually true.

You found out, “Hey! It’s actually true!”

Now, do you think that I should say, “Well, you only believe it’s true because you had faith first in Mrs. Caltigarone”?

 

[PRmerger]

However, many people attribute miracles to cancer healings…

Indeed.

And unless you’re privy to all of the data, (or you’re claiming the charism of omniscience again ), you can’t know if their attribution is correct or hokey.

#youjustcantknowcanyou

Show me where the superman that has never lied is and I give you the executioner that Jesus sought to cast the first stone.

You do know that there are other sins, besides lying?

All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory.

But not all have lied.

(Of course, “all” is a qualified “all” that only fundamentalists believe means “every single person that’s ever existed has sinned”)

People lie. Animals lie, too. It’s in our genes.

People do lie.

But you can’t know that every single person has lied.

That would be…omniscient, eh?

Also, I wouldn’t call it supernatural… just a lot of healthy extrapolation. Some may be exaggerated… I’m counting on you to reign me back to the realm of reality.

I find it so amusingly peculiar (or peculiarly amusing) how standards are so low for evidence among atheists for some things (“I have not a shred of evidence for my belief, but I can extrapolate!”…but for other things it’s all: "You have not a shred of evidence for your belief, and you can’t extrapolate, Believer! You must show me peer-reviewed, empirical, reproducible data and that’s all I’ll accept or else I won’t believe!)

-PR “I’m amused by the double standard”-merger

 

[PRmerger]

That’s just a little weird. You say that that isn’t the argument and then go on to list exactly why I say it is. What you are saying is that if we can find someone prepared to die rather than deny that the bible confirms that the world is 6,000 years old, then ‘we have a compelling set of reasons for thinking it quite possibly true’.

Oh, this is* so* not a correct articulation of the argument.

If we use your parallel, you need to state it this way:

if there is a man who is spreading a LIE that the earth is 6000 years old////

and he is tortured for this belief…

and he DOESN"T RECANT…

THEN,

we can assert with great certainty: he really wasn’t lying. He really did believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[PRmerger]

But it is plainly obvious that people will die for what they believe is true.

YESSSS!!!

Not for what they believe is a lie.

EGG-ZACTLYYYY!!!

They WILL NOT DIE FOR A LIE.

Which means…

the apostles, the early christians, the ones who claimed they saw Jesus ALIVE…

were…

NOT LYING.



They were tortured, made to watch their loved ones be tortured, yet no one recanted and said, “I lied about seeing Him!”

QED

 

[pocaracas]

Good morning PR.

My favorite 3 words on this forum.

Which I’m glad to provide anytime they are appropriate.

No. There is no waiting. Those who wait, lose.

You can’t find a girl to marry if you wait at home.

Get up, ask her for a date. Get to know her.

How fitting… How do I know that the girl is there, in the first place?

Yes. I suppose there is such a thing as being “too skeptical”.

However, a healthy skepticism is never a bad thing.

I try to be at the healthy optimum.

####################

Well, I think the one where God dwells among us, redeems us through his death and is resurrected has a pretty good shot at being the best one.

You know that we shouldn’t be looking for the best one, but for the real one.
I agree that would be the best… or, at least, one of the better.
But is it really?
I can’t tell…

This is nonsense. Geography may make you believe a certain religion as a child, but when you examine the evidence, you should come to the correct belief, regardless of your geographical location.

You missed the point.
“The original geographical distribution of religions” as in the place where those religions were born… not where the adherents were born… " suggests that they are all sparked by local phenomena".

I’m not sure you really want to present this as a good argument against Christianity, poca.

Let’s say you have some anti-vacciners. They are the most skeptical people in the world regarding the benefits of vaccinating your children.

You present them with the science.

They say, “Your info is incapable of convincing me to vaccinate my children.”

What’s your conclusion?

Is something wrong with the message, or with the receiver?

Most anti-vacciners, according to the skewed view I get from anti-“anti-vacciners” sites and news reports, are more concerned with the extra non-disclosed elements in the vaccines - those numbing, controlling chemicals that the Government puts there to control the population… heck, there may even be a tracking chip in there!
Yeah… skeptics they may not be… more like conspiracy theorists.
Others simply trust God and refuse any medical intervention.

Back to the message of christianity, PR… why is it conveyed in the same way as any other religious message?

 

[pocaracas]

I take it that you are against education?

Did you not attend university because it was simply people desiring to mold other people’s minds and control you?

Education is teaching what is found in reality.
The teachings may be skewed to a particular point of view… The history of my country was taught in a clearly skewed fashion of “us VS them”, where “them” were mostly the spanish and the muslims.
Most other subjects were pretty much inert, widely accepted facts.

What makes you think God hasn’t done it in the best possible way?

Let me assure you: He absolutely did.

If the best possible way is spawning in a single location… and taking 2 thousand years to convince some 33% of the worldwide population, while permitting other religions to pop up and thrive to convince some 23% of the worldwide population, and while some 10% are not believing in any of it… then I’m not impressed.

What makes you say so assuredly that he did it in the best possible way?

Incidentally, there is only one unforgivably sin, poca. Do you know what it is, without seeking succor with Fr. Google?

No, I don’t… I’ve been told not believing is one of the worst… another one is suicide.
For muslims, apostasy is a big deal.
Now you tell me there’s only one?..
You tell me, you educate me… what is that only one unforgivable sin, PR?

It’s been quite satisfactory for 2000 years.

And just like there’s anti-vaccciners, who disbelieve despite the copious amount of data, there’s always going to be the religious version of anti-vacciners, who disbelieve despite copious amounts of evidence.

Doesn’t indict the data.

It simply indicates the receivers of the data are lacking in good discernment.

Unlike the anti-vacciners, the people who don’t believe in christianity are not a fringe minority.
It’s some 65% of the world’s population.
It’s not been satisfactory for those peoples who already had a religion and were happy with it (Jews, Hindus, Buddhists…). Perhaps the message does not appeal to them? Why would that be?

“I don’t believe in miracles, therefore where the Bible talks about miracles, it’s false”
“The Bible talks about false things, therefore I don’t believe in miracles”.

And round and round goes the man with an agenda.

Bradski mentioned this, too… you seem to have a problem with people accepting some parts of your holy text, while not accepting other parts.

No, I don’t accepts the parts with magic in them, for I see no magic in the world beyond those pages.
Certainly, I see magic in other similar holy texts… even from other religions. I also see magic in fictional writings.

But I see no magic in reality. I know of many people passing off illusions as magic. Nowadays, we are mostly educated to spot the difference… but it wasn’t so… not so long ago… beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2013/07/yogi-levitates-in-front-of-150-witnesses-no-props-or-tricks-discovered-2442926.html
Oh look, people still believe in illusions…

##################

Here’s a good one.

Really?
The one under debate on this very thread?
Is that the best supported one you have?
I’m not impressed.

No, poca. I undertook study of Christianity using evidence and came to the most reasonable conclusion.

Study of Christianity… what is that?
Did you also study all the other religions so that you could tell which is the most reasonable?

################

Indeed.

And unless you’re privy to all of the data, (or you’re claiming the charism of omniscience again ), you can’t know if their attribution is correct or hokey.

#youjustcantknowcanyou

And that is just why the claims keep pouring.
“It’s a miracle” they say…

Let’s just say it’s most likely not a miracle… but let them believe it is… no harm done, I guess.

You do know that there are other sins, besides lying?

All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory.

But not all have lied.

(Of course, “all” is a qualified “all” that only fundamentalists believe means “every single person that’s ever existed has sinned”)

You should know…
Just as a side note, have you seen the movie “The invention of lying”?

People do lie.

But you can’t know that every single person has lied.

That would be…omniscient, eh?

It’s a valid enough extrapolation of my awareness of human nature.
Can you tell when someone is lying? Can you tell when a lie is passed on and a person who believes in the lie then writes about it?

I find it so amusingly peculiar (or peculiarly amusing) how standards are so low for evidence among atheists for some things (“I have not a shred of evidence for my belief, but I can extrapolate!”…but for other things it’s all: "You have not a shred of evidence for your belief, and you can’t extrapolate, Believer! You must show me peer-reviewed, empirical, reproducible data and that’s all I’ll accept or else I won’t believe!)

-PR “I’m amused by the double standard”-merger

The standards be what they be.
Supernatural phenomena need to show themselves.
Natural phenomena, such as humans lying… that oh so common activity that kids learn sooner than we’d expect… that requires very little to accept.

 

[pocaracas]

They were tortured, made to watch their loved ones be tortured, yet no one recanted and said, “I lied about seeing Him!”

Or no one was reported as recanting.

Do tell me more about these tortures - how and when did they happen.
What are your sources for their happening… could they be from the persecutors? Or from the persecuted?
Which side would exaggerate the non-recanting, faith-unwavering version?

 

[PRmerger]

How fitting… How do I know that the girl is there, in the first place?

Why, because her closet full of clothes and shoes didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

Unless you believe in magic, and that something just comes out of nothing, then you have to believe that there’s a person who got those Manolos and put them in her closet.

I try to be at the healthy optimum.

Of course.

You know that we shouldn’t be looking for the best one, but for the real one.

You are correct.

I agree that would be the best… or, at least, one of the better.
But is it really?
I can’t tell…

We are here to help.

You missed the point.
“The original geographical distribution of religions” as in the place where those religions were born… not where the adherents were born… " suggests that they are all sparked by local phenomena".

Ok.

And??

Most anti-vacciners, according to the skewed view I get from anti-“anti-vacciners” sites and news reports, are more concerned with the extra non-disclosed elements in the vaccines - those numbing, controlling chemicals that the Government puts there to control the population… heck, there may even be a tracking chip in there!
Yeah… skeptics they may not be… more like conspiracy theorists.
Others simply trust God and refuse any medical intervention.

Irrelevant.

There are folks who read the evidence, yet are not convinced.

According to you that means the evidence is faulty.

And yet…we have the anti-vacciners.

We must conclude that the science is bad here?

No?

Well, you can’t have it both ways, poca.

Back to the message of christianity, PR… why is it conveyed in the same way as any other religious message?

Other religions have the Eternal Logos, come to earth to proclaim the kerygma?

 

[PRmerger]

Or no one was reported as recanting.

LOL!

Your entire premise is based on this: the people lied.

You are an atheist who is proclaiming something that is…

wait for it…
wait for it…

based on NOTHING except, “I know how people act”.

Not a shred of evidence–no piece of paper with written testimony (isn’t that what you demand as evidence for Christianity?), no witnesses, nothing written by the LIAR–
that says that someone lied, and then recanted.

#irony
#amusing
#faithfilled

 

[pocaracas]

Why, because her closet full of clothes and shoes didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

Unless you believe in magic, and that something just comes out of nothing, then you have to believe that there’s a person who got those Manolos and put them in her closet.

Are you suggesting I fall in love with a girl I don’t know exists, just because of the clothes on some closet??

We are here to help.

So I came to the right place, I hope!

Ok.

And??

And… sparked by local phenomena, heavily inspired by local culture… sort of looks exactly like a recipe for man-made mythology.

Irrelevant.

There are folks who read the evidence, yet are not convinced.

According to you that means the evidence is faulty.

And yet…we have the anti-vacciners.

We must conclude that the science is bad here?

No?

Well, you can’t have it both ways, poca.

The science works well, most of the times.
There are always people who have adverse reactions to the components of the vaccines. Stories of these can spread and make people refuse to take those vaccines, when they’d probably be fine afterwards.
The science is often not explained… while the fear of those adverse reactions can get exploited to increase the repulsion of the people… pepper it with some extra conspiracy theory bits… couple it with a general ignorance of science by the people… and science stands no chance.

The science communication is bad. That much is clear. Maybe it’s because most of them are anti-social nerds…

Other religions have the Eternal Logos, come to earth to proclaim the kerygma?

Let’s say I don’t want to use Fr. Google… what are those “Eternal Logos” and “kerygma”?

##############

LOL!

Your entire premise is based on this: the people lied.

You are an atheist who is proclaiming something that is…

wait for it…
wait for it…

based on NOTHING except, “I know how people act”.

Not a shred of evidence–no piece of paper with written testimony (isn’t that what you demand as evidence for Christianity?), no witnesses, nothing written by the LIAR–
that says that someone lied, and then recanted.

#irony
#amusing
#faithfilled

Yes, I am an atheist, however, I don’t remember demanding anything. I merely ask for evidence of the magic that’s so happily described in the book you guys follow.
I ask the same of every religion that claims to have magic.

I ask for evidence of what was written long ago… for I do not trust what was written long ago, for I know that people lie… look at all religions… if, at best, only one of them is true, then all others are basing themselves on a lie (or a grossly inaccurate view of reality).

But you seem to want me to provide you with something written long ago claiming that they told lies, way back then… why? Why do you persist in such folly?
I can, however, give you something cool about those times:
cracked.com/article_20536_5-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-ancient-civilizations.html
(It’s cracked.com… gotta be true, right? )

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I am an atheist, however, I don’t remember demanding anything. I merely ask for evidence of the magic that’s so happily described in the book you guys follow.
I ask the same of every religion that claims to have magic.

Hold the phone, pocaracas!

You “merely ask for evidence of magic,” AND YET are willing to accept what amounts to claims of magic when those claims proceed from the mouths of physicists like Krauss or are “so happily described” in his books.

To wit:

This argument tells only that there must be something out of our Universe.
Such is the standard assumption that goes into Krauss’s Universe from Nothing.
The Nothing he speaks of isn’t really nothing… it’s just empty space.
And empty space has been shown to theoretically bring forth particles and their corresponding anti-particles.

So things can proceed from “nothing,” though it isn’t literally nothing, merely “just empty space.” AND since it has “theoretically” been shown to bring forth particles and their anti-particles from “nothing,” (AKA “just empty space”) you are good with that?

What ever happened to requiring “evidence of magic?” It appears that you are willing to accept the “religion” and “magic” of some such as Krauss, but become arbitrarily quite dismissive when essentially the same “magical” claims are made by those who do not invoke the properly modern or technical sounding or “theoretical” incantations; provided, I suppose, as long as those don’t “theoretically” contain the word, “God.”

No god required.

Well, that is what is puzzling, really. NO omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Ground of Being that could “theoretically” and actually explain why things are the way they are is or need be required, but “empty space” that actually and essentially explains NOTHING gives you the profound assurance that your purportedly robust, “non-magic-friendly” brand of skepticism has been thoroughly satisfied.

Uh-huh. And you want to leave the impression that we are the credulous ones?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17307

 

[pocaracas]

Hold the phone, pocaracas!

You “merely ask for evidence of magic,” AND YET are willing to accept what amounts to claims of magic when those claims proceed from the mouths of physicists like Krauss or are “so happily described” in his books.

To wit:

This argument tells only that there must be something out of our Universe.
Such is the standard assumption that goes into Krauss’s Universe from Nothing.
The Nothing he speaks of isn’t really nothing… it’s just empty space.
And empty space has been shown to theoretically bring forth particles and their corresponding anti-particles

Perhaps someone demonstrated the theory with an experiment?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift

And many others corroborated that the experiment is sound and in accordance with the theory…

Well, that is what is puzzling, really. NO omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Ground of Being that could “theoretically” and actually explain why things are the way they are is or need be required, but “empty space” that actually and essentially explains NOTHING gives you the profound assurance that your purportedly robust, “non-magic-friendly” brand of skepticism has been thoroughly satisfied.

Uh-huh. And you want to leave the impression that we are the credulous ones?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17307

Maybe I should have shown you that experiment earlier… but that look on your face is priceless!

EDIT: you know? People don’t earn Nobel Prizes for crazy theories!

See also the Casimir Effect…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I ask for evidence of what was written long ago… for I do not trust what was written long ago, for I know that people lie…

Yes, of course, and today ONLY trustworthy “truths” are told.

I think I detect a note of chronological snobbery in your tone. Could that be because YOU are alive today and thus an infallible arbiter of truth is available to us, here and now?

You don’t suppose that some honest and sincere folk, like you, were not around then? None with a genuine desire to tell the truth as they saw it? None such as that could have been Apostles or disciples or very early Christians?

… look at all religions… if, at best, only one of them is true, then all others are basing themselves on a lie (or a grossly inaccurate view of reality).

And since science is constantly revising itself, then all past and outdated theories were necessarily based on “lies?”

No such thing as honest error where religion is concerned, but scientists have always been and continue to be impeccable as far as “basing themselves” on the truth, even when their views are constantly, chronically, being shown to require revision?

Have you ever considered that even where something is plainly obvious – as plain as what is in front of your eyes – the way that empirical facts are, that human beings still can’t get “the facts” straight? AND where ascertaining the more difficult, the more abstract and profoundly non-observable truth is concerned, humans will simply have a more difficult time getting it right?

No “lying” need be assumed. Merely honest error if we are going to be fair-minded about the matter.

Sure, some lies have been sloughed on the unwary, but that has occurred in the observable, empirical arts, as well as the metaphysical. Although, where the observable world is conerned there it is referred to as, “sleight of hand.”

If we are being honest, it is determinably “sleight of hand” that physicists like Krauss attempt to foist on the unwary and feckless under the cover of his “expertise” as a physicist. “Nothing” is really “empty space,” and “empty space” is “theoretically” explanatory of “everything that exists.” Yes, of course it is .

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, of course, and today ONLY trustworthy “truths” are told.

I think I detect a note of chronological snobbery in your tone. Could that be because YOU are alive today and thus an infallible arbiter of truth is available to us, here and now?

You don’t suppose that some honest and sincere folk, like you, were not around then? None with a genuine desire to tell the truth as they saw it? None such as that could have been Apostles or disciples or very early Christians?

Yes, they could… The christian view of these things is a possibility.
The human nature view (of liars, perhaps not purposeful liars) is another possibility.
Out of the two, which seems more in tune with what we know of the world around us?

And since science is constantly revising itself, then all past and outdated theories were necessarily based on “lies?”

No such thing as honest error where religion is concerned, but scientists have always been and continue to be impeccable as far as “basing themselves” on the truth, even when their views are constantly, chronically, being shown to require revision?

Have you ever considered that even where something is plainly obvious – as plain as what is in front of your eyes – the way that empirical facts are, that human beings still can’t get “the facts” straight? AND where ascertaining the more difficult, the more abstract and profoundly non-observable truth is concerned, humans will simply have a more difficult time getting it right?

Yes, science has been systematically correcting itself… and may continue to do so well into the future.
I’m aware of that… I’m also aware that it’s mainly due to missing technology to peer ever more “perfectly” into things.

And the problem is?..

No “lying” need be assumed. Merely honest error if we are going to be fair-minded about the matter.

I agree that the people who first pronounced the tale of the resurrection may have been convinced that it happened… or may have told it in jest and someone else took it to be real… or was describing a dream and the others missed the part where it was supposed to be a dream and thought it to be real… or… or… or…

Lies need not spread on purpose.
Doesn’t make them any more true.

Sure, some lies have been sloughed on the unwary, but that has occurred in the observable, empirical arts, as well as the metaphysical. Although, where the observable world is conerned there it is referred to as, “sleight of hand.”

If we are being honest, it is determinably “sleight of hand” that physicists like Krauss attempt to foist on the unwary and feckless under the cover of his “expertise” as a physicist. “Nothing” is really “empty space,” and “empty space” is “theoretically” explanatory of “everything that exists.” Yes, of course it is .

I’ll let you catch up with the part of the thread where I present you with experiments confirming the theory…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Perhaps someone demonstrated the theory with an experiment?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift

And many others corroborated that the experiment is sound and in accordance with the theory…

Which demonstrates what, precisely?

That “empty space” means “empty” of observables? Okay, so THAT would demonstrate the limits of empirical science, and of Lawrence Krauss’ capacity to make scientific claims. What it doesn’t do is it doesn’t conclusively demonstrate the creative power of nothingness.

Unless, of course, you have wrongheadedly confused physical reality with “all reality” by way of methodological materialism.

If you take a deep breath to recover from those eliminative materialistic vapours you will realize what has been “corroborated” is that assuming methodological materialism runs you head on into a logical contradiction, an absurdity as a conclusion: that everything comes from nothing. Ergo, logically speaking, the assumed major premise that got you there to begin with, MUST BE in error.

Of course, we CAN’T permit that because that means eliminative materialism CAN’T be true.

Segue to Lawrence Krauss frantically scribbling: “We MUST stop…”