The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[The_Exodus]

Reason indicates we face up to an unkown as an unknown.

Absolutely. But reason can’t face up to a contradiction or absurdity; e.g. something coming “from” nothing.

touchstone:

As a materialist, I suppose there may have been always an eternal something. Where’s the contradiction, again?

There’s no contradiction is supposing there was an eternal something. As a matter of fact, after clearing up what is implied in “eternal,” I think it’s the most reasonable position to hold.

Something coming from absolute “nothing,” however, is absurd.

touchstone:

I’ve yet to see you identify any of the contradictions you are going on about.

Something coming from nothing is a contradiction, since “nothing” implies not absolute nothing, but some sort of conditioned nothing, i.e. that which brings forth something. The word “from” implies some sort of mode of being out of which something can come. E.g. I may say I came “from” my house, or the tree came “from” the acorn. To use the word “from” while not referring to anything at all, however, is absurd. It’s akin to saying “the place I came from is no place.”

But as far as there being an “eternal something,” I have no dispute with this.

touchstone:

What you can’t apprehend, you can’t apprehend. But that doesn’t deny what you can apprehend.

This is obviously true, and has never been a point of contention. The real difficulty is, you suppose contradictories can obtain “outside” your mind. “Absurd to us,” you say, “but perhaps still true.”

What you are doing, however, is making the law of contradiction an ontological idealistic category. It then is a truth, not which you gain from reality, but which you impose upon it. In which case, your entire epistemology is a priori and ontological. Science is thereby impossible, since the phenomena lie totally beyond our ken.

How is it we come to know the law of contradiction, on your view? How do we know it’s really true, with regard to phenomena outside the mind?

touchstone:

It’s reasonable to say I don’t know when, in fact I don’t know.

Then it’s manifestly unreasonable to be an atheist.

 

[Windfish]

Science never will stop searching, or claiming that the search for truth is over.

The Eureka moment is not evidence of science stopping it’s search for truth that may be an inconvenient truth.

Like it or not, the results must be published.

No bias allowed.

Believers may or may not be able to do this.

Science, has to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_moment

This horrible wiki link gives us an idea of the Eureka phrase tossed around.

Science is looking for truth, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be.

Science explores mechanistic causes for things. I wouldn’t call this “truth.”

 

[5tunate]

Science explores mechanistic causes for things. I wouldn’t call this “truth.”

Well, is it true that we experience gravity? Is it true that within the parameters of physical science, the laws of ballistics work? I would think that we can admit that the word “truth” has kinds and levels of applications, even from our own common usages.

Now we maybe can get pious and say that “truth” ought only refer to the tenets and dogmas of the Church. But those are yet belief, not knowledge in the same sense as we know the trajectories of falling objects in orbit. And certainly a genuine mystic knows the truths religions are structured on as experiential, as distinct from intellectual or pious assertions made by believers who have their religion by habit or training. So we need perhaps to qualify our definitions and applications rather than to limit the use of a very practical word to some aspect of a particular faith system.

 

[Rocinante]

this is an excellent debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the resurrection.

youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

 

[buffalo]

Science never will stop searching, or claiming that the search for truth is over.

The Eureka moment is not evidence of science stopping it’s search for truth that may be an inconvenient truth.

Like it or not, the results must be published.

No bias allowed.

Believers may or may not be able to do this.

Science, has to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_moment

This horrible wiki link gives us an idea of the Eureka phrase tossed around.

Science is looking for truth, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be.

Science by its own definition precludes an unbiased search for truth.

To try to claim this is an abuse of the taxpayers.

 

[Rocinante]

Science by its own definition precludes an unbiased search for truth.

To try to claim this is an abuse of the taxpayers.

what is the supposed bias of science? science is our attempt to not be biased–to not fool ourselves about what is true and false. are you calling the attempt not to be biased a bias? if so, that is granted, but it is a good thing.

 

[buffalo]

what is the supposed bias of science? science is our attempt to not be biased–to not fool ourselves about what is true and false. are you calling the attempt not to be biased a bias? if so, that is granted, but it is a good thing.

Science by its own definition is limited to the 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It cannot address the supernatural. So, by definition, how can it arrive at the truth?

 

[Rocinante]

Science by its own definition is limited to the 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It cannot address the supernatural. So, by definition, how can it arrive at the truth?

it is no way limited to the five senses. that is what all those special scientific measurement tools are for–because our senses are inadequate to what we want to measure.

as for the supernatural, this is an area of knowledge that was basically defined as that area that is inaccessible to science, so yeah, i guess you can say that science can’t access it.

but what is it we are even talking about when we talk about the supernatural? i think you’ll have a hard time defining what that is specifically in a way that science can’t access. either there is nothing to study that goes by the name of supernatural–no possibility for knowledge–or science can study it.

rocinante

 

[buffalo]

it is no way limited to the five senses. that is what all those special scientific measurement tools are for–because our senses are inadequate to what we want to measure.

as for the supernatural, this is an area of knowledge that was basically defined as that area that is inaccessible to science, so yeah, i guess you can say that science can’t access it.

but what is it we are even talking about when we talk about the supernatural? i think you’ll have a hard time defining what that is specifically in a way that science can’t access. either there is nothing to study that goes by the name of supernatural–no possibility for knowledge–or science can study it.

rocinante

\

Science a priori won’t let a Divine foot in the door.

The point is that the best science can do is empirical science - observable, repeatable, and predictable. The reasoning too often moves into the domain of philosophy. The reasoning then is biased by the a priori assumptions. That is not the truth.

 

[Rocinante]

Science a priori won’t let a Divine foot in the door.

not true. if you say what this divine being attached to the divine foot is like, there could be true and false things to say about it. so long as these things you want to say have something to do with human experience. and if they have nothing to do with conscious experience, then we can’t possibly be concerned about them.

The point is that the best science can do is empirical science - observable, repeatable, and predictable. The reasoning too often moves into the domain of philosophy. The reasoning then is biased by the a priori assumptions. That is not the truth.

if something can’t be observed–is never experienced in any way–then what could there possibly be to know about it? what could possibly be worth knowing about something that is completely unpredictable, never repeats itself, and is never experienced?

when i think about all the things that are never experienced in any way, i find myself thinking of nothing at all.

rocinante

 

[buffalo]

not true. if you say what this divine being attached to the divine foot is like, there could be true and false things to say about it. so long as these things you want to say have something to do with human experience. and if they have nothing to do with conscious experience, then we can’t possibly be concerned about them.

if something can’t be observed–is never experienced in any way–then what could there possibly be to know about it? what could possibly be worth knowing about something that is completely unpredictable, never repeats itself, and is never experienced?

when i think about all the things that are never experienced in any way, i find myself thinking of nothing at all.

rocinante

So your claim is science can find all there is to know?

 

[Rocinante]

So your claim is science can find all there is to know?

there are certainly some questions that science cannot answer in practice. for example, we have no way of knowing precisely how many stars there are in the galaxy right now, but it is still a scientific question.

you claim is that there is something that science* in principle* can’t study that goes by the name of supernatural. that these sorts of questions are valid but are just not scientific questions. my point is that if the supernatural is something that is experienced, then it can be studied. if it is never experienced, then there is nothing to know about it.

rocinante

 

[buffalo]

there are certainly some questions that science cannot answer in practice. for example, we have no way of knowing precisely how many stars there are in the galaxy right now, but it is still a scientific question.

you claim is that there is something that science* in principle* can’t study that goes by the name of supernatural. that these sorts of questions are valid but are just not scientific questions. my point is that if the supernatural is something that is experienced, then it can be studied. if it is never experienced, then there is nothing to know about it.

rocinante

The highest science, theology studies the supernatural.

Human experience is one way we know God.

 

[Rocinante]

The highest science, theology studies the supernatural.

i’m not sure what you mean by theological study. can you given an example of something we have learned about the supernatural through this sort of study?

in what sense is theology the highest science? what makes one science higher than another? isn’t there really just one science? either we have good reason to believe something or we do not. if we have good reason to believe it, it is part of the scientific body of knowledge.

Human experience is one way we know God.

sure, but what other way could there possibly be to know anything?

 

[buffalo]

i’m not sure what you mean by theological study. can you given an example of something we have learned about the supernatural through this sort of study?

in what sense is theology the highest science? what makes one science higher than another? isn’t there really just one science? either we have good reason to believe something or we do not. if we have good reason to believe it, it is part of the scientific body of knowledge.

sure, but what other way could there possibly be to know anything?

You can see from this diagram how it flows.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7084

 

[AntiTheist]

You presuppose humas conceive unity, even in order to refute the notion.

I’m not refuting the notion that humans conceive unity – I’m refuting the notion that “unity” is anything more than a conception of the mind.

Again, my computer is not a “single thing” – I can perceive it as a single thing, but I can also perceive it as chips and wires and buttons and gizmos. And I could also perceive each of those chips and wires and buttons and gizmos as smaller parts. And I could – well, I can’t perceive those smaller parts as atoms, but I can imagine it.

A “thing,” a “unity,” is a creation of the mind for the convenience of labeling and discussing experience.

We’re way off topic, by the way. Can someone please present evidence that the magical elements of the Gospel happened? Or at least link me to a post from earlier in the thread that you think convincingly demonstrates this?

 

[Rocinante]

You can see from this diagram how it flows.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7084

you’ll have to explain it. is this like a venn diagram? why are science and reason separate?

 

[buffalo]

you’ll have to explain it. is this like a venn diagram? why are science and reason separate?

It shows how the information flows.

Revelation informs faith, science informs reason. Faith and Reason cannot be opposed. The area labeled IDvolution is where they must both be true.

 

[AntiTheist]

The area labeled IDvolution is where they must both be true.

Ahahahahahahaha.

Can we please get back to the subject of this thread? Somebody present some evidence that the magical parts of the Gospel stories happened.

 

[EricFilmer]

We’re way off topic, by the way. Can someone please present evidence that the magical elements of the Gospel happened?

How are the math concepts presented by The Exodus or me “way off topic”? After all, here is what is going on in this thread:

1. You want evidence that the “magical elements” in the Gospel actually happened.
2. If someone presents you with information in an attempt to verify the truth of Gospel miracles, you will subject this information to your definition of evidence. As I have discerned previously, your definition for evidence (for all intents and purposes) is that something which exists independent of the human mind will affect the physical world in a way that is detectable by a 21st Century human using the scientific method.
3. If the information does not fall within the requirements of your definition of evidence, then you will dismiss the information. Likewise, you will claim that any beliefs based upon such information lacks credibility.

Therefore, you use your definition of evidence as the test of validity for whether or not proposed information is truly evidence. But before this process comes into play, I think it is important to first test the validity of your definition. After all, as I am sure you know, in science the term validity means that a tool truly measures what it is claimed to measure. If your definition for evidence is inaccurate in its ability to discern what is and what is not acceptable evidence, then likewise it should not be the sole means by which the quality of evidence is discerned in this thread.

Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to test your definition of evidence with a topic that everyone agrees exists, and for this I have chosen numbers (and mathematics). If your definition fails in its ability to properly address the nature of something that obviously exists (such as numbers and math), then why expect it to succeed in its ability to address the nature of something that only possibly exists (i.e., miracles)? If you think my thoughts here are unreasonable then explain how.

I’m not refuting the notion that humans conceive unity – I’m refuting the notion that “unity” is anything more than a conception of the mind.

Your premise seems to be that because the concept of unity can be subjective, it must always be subjective. That’s a pretty big leap, and one that can be tested. I will now attempt to do so…

Example One: My garage has a vast assortment of automotive parts. When I walk into my garage, I understand this assortment as a “car”. I see a unity. But if a mouse is scampering around in the engine, its mind would probably only understand it as a vast assortment of strange objects, not necessarily being related to one another in functional way. In other words, whereas I see “one car”, the mouse sees “a lot of stuff.” In this case, the concept of unity is subjective (because the concept is based upon the perception of the mind doing the contemplation).

Example Two: Because of how the forces of gravity work out in our area of the universe, our solar system contains one star. The forces at work combined gasses and energy to create a single functioning whole (a star), and forces in the universe likewise precluded other stars from forming here (i.e., there is one star, and not two or more). This is a statement of fact, regardless of the perception of any minds. In this case, unity is a characteristic. It is not a subjective attribute a mind gives to it, but an objective characteristic of the reality that there is a finite number of stars in our solar system, and that number is one.

Therefore, concepts of unity can be subjective (an abstract product of the mind) and objective (a statement of reality not dependent upon the perception of a sentient being). Obviously, the origin of objective reality is not subjective perception. But subjective perception can be (and often is) a reflection upon existent objective reality. Therefore, humans did not create the concept of unity, but learned it by observing the unity that already exists in objective reality. So, contrary to your above quote, “unity” is certainly more than just a conception of the mind.

These, of course, are my thoughts concerning the ideas you presented to The Exodus. I’ll cover the points you made directly to me in my next post.