The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[Peter_Plato]

They current theory is that mass warps space-time and again this is supported by verifiable evidence, but yes a agree we get to the point where we have to face the unknown like the origins of the universe. What the intellectually honest people do at this point is simply admit we do not know. Many here will tell you god made the universe but that tells us nothing about how the universe came to be, how did god do it? You may just as well just admit we do not know, It amounts to the same level of explanation.

It is quite reasonable to hold to both of these propositions:

1. God created the universe
2. The way that he did lies entirely open to human exploration and explanation.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

That means that theists can AND have been just as effective in the pursuit of science as any atheist.

That God created the universe is an entirely different issue from HOW he did so.

To confuse and conflate the two as if theists who claim that God created the universe must then “sits down and shuts up” with regard to pursuing a scientific explanation is disingenuous blather.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

It isn’t at all surprising that you must now take your leave and rationalize doing so with disparaging comments about this forum. When the going gets tough…

Tough is not the word I would use, lack of understanding, straw-mans, fallacies would be better.

To be honest the level of thought is at times very limited compared to other arenas, I suspect it is down to the fact that no one here actually challenges their beliefs an there is a strict system of self-reinforcement.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is REALLY basic stuff and the entire fields of logic and philosophy support me 100%.

You mean those fields you said ought to “sits down and shuts up?”

How can they provide your “burden of proof” for you when you have relegated them to silence?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

It is quite reasonable to hold to both of these propositions:

1. God created the universe
2. The way that he did lies entirely open to human exploration and explanation.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

That means that theists can AND have been just as effective in the pursuit of science as any atheist.

That God created the universe is an entirely different issue from HOW he did so.

To confuse and conflate the two as if theists who claim that God created the universe must then “sits down and shuts up” with regard to pursuing a scientific explanation is disingenuous blather.

Where did I say otherwise, I said the explanation “god did it” is as useful as we do not know. The only person confusing and conflating the two is YOU, you really do struggle to follow simple posts.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You mean those fields you said ought to “sits down and shuts up?”

How can they provide your “burden of proof” for you when you have relegated them to silence?

Again you can’t follow a simple post, I said when it comes to understanding the cosmos.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Almost every post you have made in this thread has been a straw man. Its astonishing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Tough is not the word I would use, lack of understanding, straw-mans, fallacies would be better.

To be honest the level of thought is at times very limited compared to other arenas, I suspect it is down to the fact that no one here actually challenges their beliefs an there is a strict system of self-reinforcement.

Actually, what I am claiming is that YOUR system of putting the “burden of proof” onto “not-science” and then claiming “not science” ought to “sits down and shuts up” IS “a strict system of self-reinforcement.”

You just don’t realize it.

By the way, “lack of understanding, straw-mans, fallacies” are philosophical notions, not scientific ones. Why would you appeal to those after relegating the entire field of logic and philosophy to silence when faced with the awesome power of science?

The reality is that whatever evidence is to be garnered by the scientific method, that evidence and the theories that develop from it are subject to logic and philosophical scrutiny. Denying that is clearly short-sighted and pretentious with regard to the actual scope of what science can provide to human knowledge.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Actually, what I am claiming is that YOUR system of putting the “burden of proof” onto “not-science” and then claiming “not science” ought to “sits down and shuts up” IS “a strict system of self-reinforcement.”

You just don’t realize it.

By the way, “lack of understanding, straw-mans, fallacies” are philosophical notions, not scientific ones. Why would you appeal to those after relegating the entire field of logic and philosophy to silence when faced with the awesome power of science?

The reality is that whatever evidence is to be garnered by the scientific method, that evidence and the theories that develop from it are subject to logic and philosophical scrutiny. Denying that is clearly short-sighted and pretentious with regard to the actual scope of what science can provide to human knowledge.

I was talking about the power of science in regard to ONE aspect of understanding, anyway this is all getting rather pointless…

Lets get to the crux of the matter. I do not accept that a god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim. I do not understand how any rational thinker can accept such a claim when there is no way to verify it. It is utterly rational to reject such a claim until it is supported by verifiable evidence, and the burden of proof for said claim lies with those making it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again you can’t follow a simple post, I said when it comes to understanding the cosmos.

When it comes to “understanding” the cosmos, the fields of logic and philosophy are indispensable.

When it comes to measuring and quantifying it, the fields of science are.

Again, you confuse what philosophy and logic do (foster understanding) with what the scientific method does (collects, organizes and verifies data.)

Without philosophy and logic, the field of science would be left holding bags and bags of raw data with no method for sorting through it and determining its significance and meaning.

Relying on thunderf00t to carry your burden of proof for you cuts no mustard here.

And offloading your burden for making a case onto “strawmen and fallacies” (oh, my) does not relieve you from the burden of actually demonstrating where the straw men and fallacies actually are.

It is not showing good form to merely claim “strawmen and fallacies,” one must actually make the case that what has been written is a verifiable strawman or fallacy.

Time for another exit, I suppose?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

When it comes to “understanding” the cosmos, the fields of logic and philosophy are indispensable.

When it comes to measuring and quantifying it, the fields of science are.

Again, you confuse what philosophy and logic do (foster understanding) with what the scientific method does (collects, organizes and verifies data.)

Without philosophy and logic, the field of science would be left holding bags and bags of raw data with no method for sorting through it and determining its significance and meaning.

Relying on thunderf00t to carry your burden of proof for you cuts no mustard here.

And offloading your burden for making a case onto “strawmen and fallacies” (oh, my) does not relieve you from the burden of actually demonstrating where the straw men and fallacies actually are.

It is not showing good form to merely claim “strawmen and fallacies,” one must actually make the case that what has been written is a verifiable strawman or fallacy.

Time for another exit, I suppose?

Ok lets compare them… Understanding of the cosmos gained by philosophy vs understanding gained by science.

I’ll take science you take philosophy. I am struggling to think of anything to do with the cosmos that was discovered though philosophy, I will wait for your great insight.

***Without philosophy and logic, the field of science would be left holding bags and bags of raw data with no method for sorting through it and determining its significance and meaning. ***

Utter nonsense, one can practice science without ANY understanding of philosophy. You clearly have NO understanding of science. Do you honestly think that when scientists analyse their data they get out the philosophy books??? LOL.

And stop grouping logic and philosophy together, where did I even mention logic which BTW is not the same as philosophy.

 

[exnihilo]

Lets get to the crux of the matter. I do not accept that a god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim. I do not understand how any rational thinker can accept such a claim when there is no way to verify it. It is utterly rational to reject such a claim until it is supported by verifiable evidence, and the burden of proof for said claim lies with those making it.

Getting back on point, what would be an example of verifiable evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed? It seems to me a lot of the discussion has been rejections of various outlooks without actually giving a coherent explanation of yours or how your beliefs work.

Utter nonsense, one can practice science without ANY understanding of philosophy. You clearly have NO understanding of science. Do you honestly think that when scientists analyse their data they get out the philosophy books??? LOL.

And stop grouping logic and philosophy together, where did I even mention logic which BTW is not the same as philosophy.

For whatever it is worth the entry on logic in Wikipedia has as its first sentence ‘philosophical logic’. Logic and math support science. Both of these are also philosophical disciplines. Without logic, math, or philosophy you couldn’t even do science. If you are limiting your idea of philosophy to a bunch of bearded post-grads sitting in a coffee shop discussing whether we are in the matrix or not then you ought to familiarize yourself with the actual discipline.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:
Utter nonsense, one can practice science without ANY understanding of philosophy.

Some, such as you, might think they are “practicing science” without any understanding of philosophy, but the fact that they are unaware of the formal discipline of drawing valid conclusions from relevant premises does not refute the fact that GOOD science requires that this be done AND done well.

You clearly have NO understanding of science. Do you honestly think that when scientists analyse their data they get out the philosophy books??? LOL.

Clearly, I have a better understanding of science than you do because you don’t seem to realize that analyzing data in terms of drawing logical conclusions from data positively requires sound deductive reasoning or conclusions will be invalid. If scientific conclusions do not validly follow from premises (observed and verified facts) they are of no worth. Sure the data needs to be checked and rechecked by retrial and verification methods, but the conclusions can ONLY follow if proper logical principles are applied.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Getting back on point, what would be an example of verifiable evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed? It seems to me a lot of the discussion has been rejections of various outlooks without actually giving a coherent explanation of yours or how your beliefs work.

For whatever it is worth the entry on logic in Wikipedia has as its first sentence ‘philosophical logic’. Logic and math support science. Both of these are also philosophical disciplines. Without logic, math, or philosophy you couldn’t even do science. If you are limiting your idea of philosophy to a bunch of bearded post-grads sitting in a coffee shop discussing whether we are in the matrix or not then you ought to familiarize yourself with the actual discipline.

I have no idea to be honest, but I am open to it if presented.

Logic IS part of philosophy but not exclusive to it, read the very next line… “The study of logic features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.”

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Some, such as you, might think they are “practicing science” without any understanding of philosophy, but the fact that they are unaware of the formal discipline of drawing valid conclusions from relevant premises does not refute the fact that GOOD science requires that this be done AND done well.

Clearly, I have a better understanding of science than you do because you don’t seem to realize that analyzing data in terms of drawing logical conclusions from data positively requires sound deductive reasoning or conclusions will be invalid. If scientific conclusions do not validly follow from premises (observed and verified facts) they are of no worth. Sure the data needs to be checked and rechecked by retrial and verification methods, but the conclusions can ONLY follow if proper logical principles are applied.

Again you have created your own argument…

Making and using philosophical assumptions is NOT THE SAME as using philosophy as a discipline. Yes all scientist have underlying philosophical assumptions but they can still do good science without any understanding of philosophy, or indeed the assumptions, and this is very easy to demonstrate. And no you do not, it seems you are not even educated to a basic scientific level. I am willing to go out a limb here and conclude you have no formal training in critical thinking, be it scientific of philosophical, am I wrong?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And stop grouping logic and philosophy together, where did I even mention logic which BTW is not the same as philosophy.

Logic is the essential method or tool of philosophers doing what is properly called “philosophy” in the same sense that the scientific (empirical) method is the tool of scientists doing “science” proper. The two are inherently tied together.

The scientific method depends entirely for its value on the philosophical case that underpins it and methodological naturalism, which, by the way, is a metaphysical (and, therefore, philosophical) position with its own flaws and limitations.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Logic is the essential method or tool of philosophers doing what is properly called “philosophy” in the same sense that the scientific (empirical) method is the tool of scientists doing “science” proper. The two are inherently tied together.

The scientific method depends entirely for its value on the philosophical case that underpins it and methodological naturalism, which, by the way, is a metaphysical (and, therefore, philosophical) position with its own flaws and limitations.

No, philosophy might be tied to logic, but logic IS NOT tied to philosophy. A ball is essential to football, does that mean all balls are footballs?

As above for the second part.

 

[lax16]

Actually, no. But I don’t really care if a man nameed Jesus existed as that is hardly and extraordinary claim. Claims he was born of a virgin on the other hand, well given that is in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING we understand about reproduction, you are going to have to provide evidence for that before I believe it.

Please re-read the title of this thread.

If you agree that Jesus actually lived and you don’t agree with those who claim he was just a myth, why didn’t you just say so?

 

[lax16]

You HAVE to be joking. The only cherry picking I am doing is answers the points which relate to what I have ACTUALLY posted. I am not got to get drawn into pointless discussion based on straw-man arguments.

No, I am not joking.

I will take my refrain from making pointless discussion with you any further. You are just too smart for me, I guess.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Please re-read the title of this thread.

If you agree that Jesus actually lived and you don’t agree with those who claim he was just a myth, why didn’t you just say so?

Right now I would say I do not agree, the only evidence I have ever seen is “every historian says so”, I have tried to find out why the all say so but it never seems to get more explanative than that. However, I am open to the idea that a man named Jesus may have existed. What I am not open to, given our understanding of the universe, is that he was a miracle working god, born of virgin etc.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am willing to go out a limb here and conclude you have no formal training in critical thinking, be it scientific of philosophical, am I wrong?

Why would you want to put yourself in such a precarious position?

Yeah, you are wrong.

However, your point is a ruse.

Whether or not I have scientific or philosophical training is irrelevant with regards to whether my point is demonstrably true or not. The fact that you want to resort to impugning credentials is an example of faulty reasoning which, again, seeks to offload the burden of actually proving a point onto an irrelevancy.

Is your conclusion, by the way, on the basis of evidence (science) or logic (philosophy) or both? To prove the evidence warrants the conclusion requires you to logically prove that it does - your position on the limb, notwithstanding.

Mere observations from “out on the limb” don’t count.

Funny, how you are so quickly willing to jump to that conclusion given that the limb that holds your backside is narrow, indeed.