The day has finally arrived.
Zombie Jesus has risen!
And he may, in fact, be coming for you…
But in case he misses you, be sure to get involved in your own wholesome zombie-related activities. I plan on eating the brains of some very delicious looking chocolate bunnies. Whatever you do, enjoy it, because tomorrow the corpse goes back in the ground and there’s no more zombie fun for another year.
Suddenly Atheist 
morsecode-
I would have insisted that a post like this would have been beneath you. How disappointing.
By: Nance on April 12, 2009
at 3:12 pm
Why?
It’s funny, and it harms no one.
That combination is always right up my alley.
By: morsec0de on April 12, 2009
at 3:35 pm
I like it, happy estrus, beotches! 🙂
By: sunnyskeptic on April 12, 2009
at 3:59 pm
I’ll see your zombie Jesus and raise you Zombie Optimus Prime!
By: Matt on April 12, 2009
at 4:37 pm
Classic my man. Good vision. I like the part about the bunnies brains lol. Check out my Easter parody. I think we’re like minded.
By: benwaysrustyscalpel on April 13, 2009
at 3:21 pm
I always find it amusing when someone who clearly has no idea what a Christian actually thinks tries to present things like this.
Nice try, though.
By: javy1689 on April 16, 2009
at 11:20 am
Actually, as I was a Christian for most of my life, I do.
And if you think this is somehow a serious consideration of Christianity, then you have no sense of humor.
By: morsec0de on April 16, 2009
at 11:32 am
You were a Christian, interesting what denominational affiliation?
Also, I just repoted what you did on my blog here http://aversebaptist.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/an-atheist-catechism/
Even though it was intended to be a satirical post. 🙂
By: javy1689 on April 16, 2009
at 12:00 pm
“It’s funny, and it harms no one.”
You are wrong it does harm someone.
It offends me, it is not funny, it is blasphemous, and it is pointless.
The person it harms is you. I will pray for you.
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on April 17, 2009
at 12:12 am
Your clinging on to a demonstratively false set of harmful superstitions and general quackery offends me, due to the inherent stupidity involved.
So I guess we’re even.
By: Matt on April 17, 2009
at 4:16 am
“It offends me, ”
Offense is not harm.
“it is not funny”
Sure it is. Humor is subjective, anyway.
“it is blasphemous”
Blasphemy is not harm.
“and it is pointless”
If that were true, why are you responding to it?
“The person it harms is you.”
No it doesn’t.
“I will pray for you.”
Okay.
By: morsec0de on April 17, 2009
at 6:43 am
my point remains, eventhough you misunderstood it.
Your post harms you, not me. Regardless of your recognition of that fact!
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on April 20, 2009
at 1:12 pm
No, it doesn’t. Glad to know you think you have some sort of magical knowledge about other people, though.
By: morsec0de on April 20, 2009
at 1:16 pm
conservativeconcepts4thenewmill, I hold your unwillingness to believe in Optimus Prime is hurting you.
Prove me wrong.
(It’s fun to turn peoples own idiotic arguments back on them to send up their own silliness)
By: Matt on April 21, 2009
at 12:28 am
Blasphemy.
Sure it doesn’t hurt anyone… Till you go to hell. Please repent.
Btw why are you even attacking something you don’t even believe? You spend all your life just attacking Christianity and God. Why? If He doesn’t exist shouldn’t you just be “happy” about it and not mention Him at ALL?? Why all the hate towards a kind God dude??
So then God’s word is right on saying that they hated Him first. I’m assuming you know the Gospel sir. Please repent and Trust in the Lord
By: Adrian on April 21, 2009
at 4:27 am
Adrian, why do you hate Optimus Prime? Why won’t you believe in him? Believe in him or you won’t be blessed by the Matrix!
By: Matt on April 21, 2009
at 5:52 am
To Mr. Matt and his silliness:
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Romans 1:21
I know this post was to be humorous but instead it goes to Blasphemed the Lord of lords and King of kings. It is not funny.
Even though one tries to talk to you seriously, that where you are going, the path you’re taking will send you straight to hell, you wouldn’t answer me or any other with a SERIOUS genuine answer. Go ahead continue with your silly responses that I’ve seen on other posts… Remember to whom you’re sinning against and I beg you to stop and come to your senses. Again, repent or otherwise you’ll be left in punishment.
Now tell me. If I was a stranger walking by and I find you being held at gun point, then I go towards you and take the bullet for you; in real life I bet you would tell everyone what happened. You would call your friends up and tell them of this great act of kindness. Wouldn’t you? I dunno what were your dealings with Christianity in the past and even if it was the true Christianity. But dude if they lied to you, you should be mad at them. But anyway… Everyone including you have sin against a Holy God. He hates sin and therefore it must be punished. But He doesn’t want everyone to just perish and go to hell. He has made a way. Jesus Christ hanged on the cross and bore your sin and took the punishment you deserve. God’s wrath was poured on Him, the same wrath that should be pour on you and everyone. He died yes, but rose from the dead with a glorified body not a zombie-like one or anything like that. He defeated death! He proved who He was by resurrecting. To obtain forgiveness we must repent (turn away) from our sins and have faith in Christ the one who took the punishment for us. Dude that is the good news! Death isn’t something to play with. What, are you just gonna die and that’s it?? No man! God demonstrated His love by dying for you a sinner! And you can obtain forgiveness.
I hope you consider these things and ponder them because you sure don’t have tomorrow promised; you don’t know when you’re gonna die!
I don’t know why people haven’t noticed that Christianity (the true one) is the only “religion” that people hate the most. Why? Because it is TRUE
By: Adrian on April 21, 2009
at 6:51 am
“I don’t know why people haven’t noticed that Christianity (the true one) is the only “religion” that people hate the most. Why? Because it is TRUE”
Hilarious.
I think the Jews would beat you there.
By: morsec0de on April 21, 2009
at 7:21 am
You hate it the most, because it convicts you and tells you you’re wrong and you hate it because of that
By: tom on May 10, 2009
at 8:29 am
I know this post was to be humorous but instead it goes to Blasphemed the Lord of lords and King of kings (hey, that’s Optimus Prime!).
As for your story about sin, it demonstrates your complete lack of study into the area.
God allowed sin to be created either directly or indirectly, depending on how literally you take your bible.
Since he is omnipotent, he could get rid of the very concept of sin at any instant he wants but does not.
Instead, he sends down an aspect of himself which he then sacrifices to himself to try to do away with a concept he himself created and controls.
Said sacrifice actually did nothing, ultimately only adding more criteria to being able to get into eternal paradise. Level of sin wasn’t reduced, number of people getting into heaven wasn’t increased.
The story itself is sillier than tales about leprechauns when you look at it.
Optimus Prime has a much better track record when it comes to overcoming death. You going to start worshipping him now?
If hate is a good measure of how legitimate something may be … well, by that logic the level of hate fundamentalist evangelicals have for homosexuals and muslims must mean those groups are correct!
By: Matt on April 21, 2009
at 4:12 pm
Hmm…
“Prove me wrong.”
Matt, Matt, Matt…. Occams razor dissolves your case for a real Optimus Prime character.
On the contrary, there are a myriad of evidences that are affirmative for theism. In particular Christianity.
It is true that I cannot prove without question that Christianity is Truth, that is why faith is required…
But what if I am right in the end? If you continue in your non-belief of Jesus as your savior, and I am correct when you die.. What would you have lost?
If I am wrong when I die, what have I lost?
I will speak for myself, and you speak for you. I have lost absolutely nothing if I am wrong when I die. Life ends, then well nothing….
We need to look at the evidences. That is where these conversations logically always end up.
I would like to ask you one simple question.
How did life start?
Abiogenesis is not viable, it takes too much faith. Give me something more scientific.
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 2, 2009
at 12:05 am
It’s strange you know about Occam’s Razor but seemingly have no clue about Pascal’s Wager, which you make a clear appeal to.
And Abiogenesis seems to hold up just fine as far as scientific theories go.
So far the evidence you’ve supplied is … oh, wait. You haven’t supplied any at all.
By: Matt on May 2, 2009
at 1:01 am
let me try again… this is a response to your Wager argument. It was pre-emptively argued:
It is true that I cannot prove without question that Christianity is Truth, that is why faith is required…
But what if I am right in the end? If you continue in your non-belief of Jesus as your savior, and I am correct when you die.. What would you have lost?
If I am wrong when I die, what have I lost?
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 4, 2009
at 3:39 pm
As far as evidence. What about the resurrection
of Christ?
What about the constant affirmation we have of intelligent beings creating complex things? As opposed to random occurances producing information…
Do software companies use wind, fire, and lightning to create Windows operating systems?
As Stephen Meyer put it in his paper:
“Since the 1960s, mathematical biologists have realized that Shannon’s theory could be applied to the analysis of DNA and proteins to measure the information-carrying capacity of these macromolecules. Since DNA contains the assembly instructions for building proteins, the information-processing system in the cell represents a kind of communication channel (Yockey 1992:110). Further, DNA conveys information via specifically arranged sequences of nucleotide bases. Since each of the four bases has a roughly equal chance of occurring at each site along the spine of the DNA molecule, biologists can calculate the probability, and thus the information-carrying capacity, of any particular sequence n bases long.”
Meaning that DNA has substantial amounts of information. Information cannot arise from chaos, scientifically speaking- the only source for information is an intelligent mind.
Optimus Prime is cool, but there is no evidence that he really existed. There is life-after-death experiences that prove souls exist. No amount of information can impart a sould into a robot. Certain characteristics of the soul, the ego, cannot be sentient like a robot.
The reson is the same as why we lost the Vietnam war. We thought that if we bombarded the Vietnamise heavily that they would give in. They didn’t becaue they had chosen to not lose, no matter the casualities. This free-will is the evidence of sould also. I am studying computer engineering/programming, and we have a saying in that field that says GIGO, it means garbage in, garbage out… Meaning that a computer or robot can only do what you program it to do. So, we may give a computer so much information and computational abilities that it APPEARS to have a soul, but it is STILL just a byproduct of programming, it cannot think.
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 4, 2009
at 3:54 pm
“If I am wrong when I die, what have I lost?”
Depends entirely on who is right.
If the Muslims are right, then you’re screwed.
So by your own argument, you had better start praying to Allah. Because if you don’t, you may end up in Islamic hell.
By: morsec0de on May 4, 2009
at 3:57 pm
First comment: Pascal’s Wager has no merit and hasn’t since about 30 seconds after it was thought up. Repeating it again does not make it right.
No independent evidence of it ever happening.
That in no way indicates there is a god of any sort.
I’d hope not, though it would go some way to explain all the bugs and idiocy that went into producing windows vista.
Again, this in no way indicates there is any sort of deity. You’re also grossly misrepresenting the mechanics of the universe since fire, wind, earth and water are not (by any stretch of the imagination) the most common elements in existence.
That seems to be a roundabout appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which, in case it had escaped your notice, only applies to closed systems and not open ones.
I have lots of evidence. His miraculous exploits are demonstrated in all sorts of records. And where the evidence doesn’t exist … well, christianity should be well and truly familiar with the line “he works in mysterious ways.”
Really? Like what? Here’s a big clue for you; when a brain starts to die, it experiences all kinds of strange hallucinations and other trippy things (that’s just basic biology).
There is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of souls.
By: Matt on May 4, 2009
at 4:58 pm
And for more about the glories of the great Optimus Prime, please visit:
http://churchofprime.wordpress.com
By: Matt on May 4, 2009
at 4:59 pm
Right!
If muslims are correct, I am screwed.
“No independent evidence of it ever happening.”
Sure there is, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John! Also, the acts of the Apostles as recorded by John. These are all independent attestations to the ressurection of Christ.
“That in no way indicates there is a god of any sort.” What else can cause information if not an intelligence?
“Again, this in no way indicates there is any sort of deity. You’re also grossly misrepresenting the mechanics of the universe since fire, wind, earth and water are not (by any stretch of the imagination) the most common elements in existence.”
Not necessarily a deity, but an intelligence. Other discussions prove the intelligent mind as a deity… I digress.
So, what are the most common elements in existence that you speak of, that could cause information?
You tried, unsuccessfully, to refute me but gave no positive evidences for Optimus existing.
“only applies to closed systems and not open ones.”
Are you saying that the universe is not a closed system? Mathematics provides evidence that the universe is a closed system, so much as it is not infinitely old. So, entropy does apply hear.
“His miraculous exploits are demonstrated in all sorts of records.” Where? The creators of the transformers never claimed to have a deity in Optimus Prime, he was always considered a toy.
“There is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of souls.” You’re wrong.
A hallucination cannot explain why people who were pronounced dead on the operating table, only to be later re-vived, claim they floated away from the table and saw themselves laying there on the table, and heard conversations that the doctors had. One lady was pronounced dead for a number of seconds. When she was amazingly re-vived, she said she floated up, and away, through the ceiling, up through the many floors of the hospital, and saw a colorful tennis shoe on top of the hospital roof. She was found to be correct! How can this be if humans aren’t two parts?
“christianity should be well and truly familiar with the line “he works in mysterious ways.”
Who? A fictional character? Yes, I will admit that Optimus works in mysterious ways, but he doesn’t do REAL life miracles.
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 5, 2009
at 12:26 am
So the accounts of a devout follower of a guy write down their versions of what happens (which sometimes don’t even match up) and you call that independent? I think you need to consult your nearest comprehensive dictionary.
Natural process does it often enough. For example, we know exactly how the natural process of snowflake formation works. It is completely natural yet creates a complex shape each time.
It does not even do that. You really are stretching a great deal.
You seem to be trying to use information as some sort of weird trump card for some reason which, at this point in time, you have utterly failed to establish. Again, natural processes have created order time and again.
(And the most common element is hydrogen)
Following the common christian line, I don’t have to. He works in mysterious ways and I have various depictions of his works in various forms of media.
Your scientific ignorance seems abundant at this time. While overall entropy can increase (and is), order can increase in more localised areas.
And we actually don’t know if the universe is a closed or open system at this time, there’s not enough evidence to say either way.
That was Optimus Prime working through the toy designers as a guide to let every regular person know he exists. Just like christians try to say images of jesus appear on pieces of toast.
Optimus Prime works in mysterious ways.
Yes, it does. You obviously have done no independent research of your own regarding the matter and are only regurgitating what you’ve heard from a pulpit or creationist website.
Floating feeling is very common when the brain gets starved of oxygen. Recollections of audio sensory input is also common since the body is still receiving sensory input even when it’s shutting down.
Prove it.
By: Matt on May 5, 2009
at 2:37 am
here…
“So the accounts of a devout follower of a guy write down their versions of what happens (which sometimes don’t even match up) and you call that independent?”
—Yes! Exactly! The accountS of a number of followers write down the same account, with minor variances, none of which are doctrinal disagreements, this is called perspective. This is actually positive affirmation of the accounts being true.
Why would all of these followers die for their savior, unless they were totally convinced in the deity of Christ. Would you die for Optimus?
“[snowflakes are] completely natural yet creates a complex shape each time.”
Snowflakes are an example of self-ordering attractions. They are NOT an example of information! Genetics, DNA, requires information. Information is not gained by repetitive sequences. A snowflake is a repetitive structure, just like chemically salt. Na-Cl…
If DNA were anything like snowflakes, or salt crystals, the repetitive nature would show a nice mantra, but would yield not one single strand of protein. Even the minimalist length of protein requires some 75 amino acids in order to form the tertiary structure of a protein. This is way too long.
The odds of this happening by chance are one in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion! This requires a lot of faith my friend…
“It does not even do that. You really are stretching a great deal.”
I repeat my question you skipped:
“What else can cause information if not an intelligence?”
“natural processes have created order”
Simple ‘order’ cannot explain the extreme complexity found in the most basic of DNA, and proteins. To argue that point would just be an admitance of your ignorance on the fact of information found in DNA. Again, pattern, or order, cannot give rise to complexity. They are two different things.
Example: A snowy patch in the woods with a yellow coloring in a spot in the middle.
A snowy patch in the woods that had a yellow “MATT” written in the snow.
The first could be someone just urinated in the snow, but the second is obviously an example of an information because urine does not fall naturally in the pattern of the word MATT. The source of information is an intelligence, maybe even you!
…”that could cause information?”
You’re saying that hydrogen causes information? Can you explain that?
“I have various depictions of his works in various forms of media.”
Do any of them claim that Optimus is REAL? nope.
“And we actually don’t know if the universe is a closed or open system at this time,”
So, if the universe is not a closed system, then that means that it is infinitely old right? As in time is eternal past?
“Optimus Prime working through the toy designers as a guide to let every regular person know he exists.”
Where/When did Optimus claim this?
“Floating feeling is very common when the brain gets starved of oxygen.”
How does this explain the actual seeing, from a third person perspective, themselves and other objective facts like the tennis shoe?
You say prove it… hahahaha!
You may be right, Optimus might be a deity!
Although there exists, still, no positive affirmations for the REAL existence of Optimus, or the other shenanigans you reference.
We cannot know anything for certain, remember Pascals Wager? All science is based on evidence supported hypothesies. So far, you have not provided any support for your argument. Nothing objective, and nothing commonly accepted among scientists. I simply do not have as much faith as you, and that may be a problem because faith is required for my beliefs in order to be saved. Instead I rely on science, and little faith is required!!! Ironic huh?
sincerely-
Matt
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 6, 2009
at 11:16 pm
It’s more than that when they get basic facts wrong. A list someone (very quickly) drew up of contrary basic facts include:
1. What time did the women visit the tomb?
2. Who were the women?
3. What was their purpose?
4. Was the tomb open when they arrived?
5. Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
6. Where were these messengers situated?
7. What did the messengers say?
8. Did the women tell what happened?
9. When Mary returned to the tomb, did she know Jesus was resurrected?
10. When did Mary first see Jesus?
11. Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
12. After the women, who did Jesus first appear?
13. Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
14. Did the disciples believe the two men?
15. Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
16. When did ascension take place?
Why wouldn’t they? People have died in the names of all manner of deities throughout human history. It does not validate their existence in any way.
Obviously not since, in case the proverbial penny hasn’t dropped, Optimus is being used here as a satirical jab at the sheer foolishness of religion everywhere.
As for your rather silly information assembling argument, it’s been dealt with before.
I suggest you look up the works of Musgrave (2003) who makes such points as (thanks to talkorigins.org, who I quote here merely to save time);
1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One’s inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.
2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth’s interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.
Obviously not. I’m saying it’s the most common element in the universe – unlike the fire, wind, earth and air you quoted.
In a way it is either way. Time and Space are intrinsically interlocked – one can not really exist without the other. The concept of time, as our universe knows it, did not exist until the universe itself began it’s formation at the point of the big bang.
Unfamiliar with the case you quoted therefore it’s reliability is in question. I would need to see an independent recount of the case before I could comment on it.
And at this point you’re getting slightly closer to the whole point of the references to Optimus Prime.
Which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand as far as I can tell. Pascal’s Wager is just a case of hedging your bets either way, which is both an intellectual and moral piece of cowardice which wouldn’t work anyhow.
Again, now you’re getting closer to the purpose of the references to Optimus Prime.
By: Matt on May 7, 2009
at 12:37 am
well…
I am not interested in writing 10 pages refuting every single thing you mentioned, that would just take too long. Suffice it to say that most of those can be answered exactly like I told you. It is about perspective…
For, an example I will reply to your first question, and if you want others can be discussed one at a time. I mean I do have a life.
“1. What time did the women visit the tomb?”
They visited the tomb Sunday morning. Of, course, your argument will be something like this:
“But, the gospels say different things!” Well, no they don’t. They say the same thing in different ways. It’s like saying the glass is half empty and saying that someone who claims that it is half full is wrong!
Matthew claims that the tomb was visited toward dawn. Mark says it was at sunrise. Luke says it was early dawn. Can all of these be true at the same time? YES!!!
Again, the convincing aspect of these different, independent, accounts are actually positive evidence that the works are all authentic. If the four different accounts were to say that person A, person B, and person C visited teh tomb ALONE, at exactly 8AM, then that would be a red flag, but most historians would agree that these independent accounts are examples of corroboration, which is strong evidence that the accounts recorded were true.
“People have died in the names of all manner of deities throughout human history.” Give me an example of someone being tortured, AND not giving in for their beliefs. I am not dis-agreeing with you, but I would like to hear about just one example.
“it is an argument from ignorance. One’s inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.”
Intelligent design is not an argument from ignorance. I am not claiming that we don’t have an answer; And, that is the basis for the theory of intelligent design. I am saying that all theories so far, are not scientifically justified, AND we have an example of something that causes information to arise. An argument from ignorance means to invoke an explanation when you come to a stand-still, and there is no other answer. This is a stand-still, that does have another theory that fits the puzzle exactly, and has the most explanatory power out of all the theories that currently exist.
“If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process.”
The question is whether or not there is information in DNA. Can random alignments of amino acids produce a functional protein? It is not plausible. An ignoramous, with way too much faith to be called a real scientist would say that it is still possible and leave it at that, but lets be real. It is not intelligent to assume that that can happen, the odds are way too astronomical.
So the real problem is whether or not that new “arrangment” is objectively information. This new arrangment needs to be complex, but also specific in its value. Like, the broken glass. It is probably in a nice pattern, spaced out in a star formation of sorts, but does it contain information? No.
Can someone walk by and say this happened because of such and such, but then walk by another broken glass and say that it was broken by THIS such an such event? No. The glass is pattern, it isn’t information. There are variables that can sku the pattern, but it will still follow that set of governed laws.. Ie. gravity, collisions….
An artist who chooses to draw a picture can draw anything they choose to. Therefore, the art contains information. Look at mount Rushmore. It is just a top of a mountain, is it not? There are many mountain tops, but mt Rushmore conatins information. It has complexity, but it is also specific about the complex arrangements of the chisel marks and such. A mind had to come in and arrange chisel marks in such a way to convey value to independent sources. Anybody can walk up to the mountain and say, “Hey those were the presidents of America!”
“it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth’s interior.”
This is absolutely incorrect, or at the very least, mis-leading!!!! What ‘organic molecules’ are you talking about?
“The concept of time, as our universe knows it, did not exist until the universe itself began it’s formation at the point of the big bang.”
So we aren’t eternal past?
If so, then what caused the universe to exist(matter), and what caused time to begin?
“Unfamiliar with the case you quoted therefore it’s reliability is in question.”
Lessons from the Light By Kenneth Ring is the book you are looking for.
“the whole point of the references to Optimus Prime.”
On the contrary, there are over 5,000 cataloged manuscripts from the New Testament! That’s just the greek manuscripts!
In comparison, there are 9 manuscripts of The Jewish War, by Josephus. There are no credible historians that reject what he wrote.
If we were to include all of the other languages spoken in the time and location that were within a few generations, we would be looking at about 24,000 manuscripts.
Homer composed the Illiad in about 800 BC, but the only surviving greek manuscripts are dated to the 2nd and 3rd century. That is a much bigger gap than the events of Christ, and the 24,000 manuscripts that we have today!!! Yet, nobody denies the authenticity of the Illiad.
“Pascal’s Wager is just a case of hedging your bets either way”
If you know Blaise Pascal, as you claim to be intimately aware of him, then you would know that his conclusions were not that you would be “hedging your bets either way,” his FINAL conclusions are based on who might be correct and who might be incorrect, AND what would be the result of your decision? My question remains:
“But what if I am right in the end? If you continue in your non-belief of Jesus as your savior, and I am correct when you die.. What would you have lost? If I am wrong when I die, what have I lost?”
This is the essence of Pascals Wager…
“Again, now you’re getting closer to the purpose of the references to Optimus Prime.”
And, again… I have given scientific examples of the need for an intelligence, the need for the infusion of information in life. I have given historical evidence for Christ, and the basic Christian belief system. I have given evidence for the existence of the soul. And your entire list of “inconsistencies,” can be dealt with when real expertise is involved. Not me, I am just a messenger, but there are real professionals who have an explanation to every single one of those challenges. Similar to the explanation that I gave for the apparent mis-understandings of the time that the people approached the tomb.
Happy mothers day!
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 8, 2009
at 12:16 am
I have to assume that you refused to answer the questions listed not for the given reason but because the various books simply can not get their answers straight.
Quick examples:
None of the gospels agree with who the women saw at the tomb (angel, man, two men, two angels).
Were the angels sitting or standing? Mark and John agree but Luke certainly doesn’t.
Matthew says the tomb was closed when they came to have a look but the other three gospels say it was open.
And regardless, using text made as propaganda pieces for the faith as evidence for said faith is still an absolutely ludicrous notion. You may as well take scientology literature and try to present that as infallible proof for the existence of Xenu.
*shrugs* Numerous people during the Inquisition spring to mind.
Yes, it is. It is everything that an argument of ignorance describes. It is also a base god of the gaps style argument, which is silly.
It has no science to back it up, no experiments, no data, no predictions. Hence why the scientific community points and laughs at it.
It’s also trying to provide a mechanism for which there is no evidence for the existence of, which is intellectually bankrupt.
Then you start getting into the definition of what is information. You have failed to disprove the notion that any pattern can be regarded as information, as is currently upheld by science.
The works of Russell and Hall (1997) and Wächtershäuser (2000) demonstrate that it has been observed. Similarly Martin, W. and M. J. Russell (2003) have published work which covers this area. I also suggest a look at the work of de Duve (1995) and Nelson (2000).
As I said, that is actually a very complicated question due to the nature of time.
I can not comment on the case since I am unfamiliar with it. It is impossible to gauge the neutral standing of said case at this time.
Your point being?
Really? The historians I know of highly doubt the credibility of his vague reference to Jesus. Josephus was born after Jesus died so any information he gathered was second hand in the very best case. A good breakdown of the further problems with Josephus’ supposed works can be found here:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html
(apologies for simply linking but the amount of information which suggests the writing is faked is simply too big for this format).
No one takes the Illiad as 100% literal history. It was a story based somewhat loosely on historical events.
And you’ve added absolutely nothing new. Pascal’s Wager has no intellectual merit not only for the reasons I have already said but also;
a) It fails to take into account the existence of other deities that might exist. For example, if Zeus is the one true god then all you’re doing is pissing him off even more.
b) You can’t fake true belief to a supposedly omniscient deity. Faking said belief to try to fulfil Pascal’s Wager will, again, only piss said deity off more.
By: Matt on May 8, 2009
at 1:34 am
i
“is simply too big for this format).”
Same reason for me not delving into the long list of suposed challenges you provided. I take it neither of us are interested in extremely long discussions involving the minutae, but you still haven’t addressed my answer. The fact that the independent accounts are the same message in essence, with slight variances in the perspective of the individual recording the facts, lends to the credibility of the message.
Another example for the point you brought up:
“None of the gospels agree with who the women saw at the tomb (angel, man, two men, two angels).”
— So, lets say that if you, me, and two of our friends Bob and Steve, went to a tomb to see our savior, and a bunch of wierd stuff happened, then we decided to write down what we saw at some later point. You wrote that Bob was there with you, and me. Then I write that my friends Matt, Bob, and Steve were there and such and such happened. You are saying that those are in-compatible, and unreliable sources? I’ll save you the suspense, it is called corroboration. Any REAL historian would understand this.
Just like if we went to see the transformers movie together, to watch Optimus, then we went to work the next day to tell all of our friends about the movie. We had lunch at different times, and in different breakrooms. Would we say the exact same thing? No, because of perspective. What was the movie about? We will probably say VERY similar things because that would be a very general idea of what happened, but we would recall the parts(details) that we, personally-individually, enjoyed or caught our attention.
Well, this is turning into a childish back and forth, so I will give it one more try:
“It has no science to back it up, no experiments, no data, no predictions.”
–The science is the constant verification of information coming from an intelligence, this is called experimentation!
Do you know any programming languages? Try to get a program to perform a new task. I bet you will need to apply intelligence to it. You need to add new lines of code. That is intelligent design! Predictions, well I think there are plenty of predictions as a result of intelligent design. We can ask ourselves what the purpose of this intelligence is, and all sorts of other thigns that lead to predictions.
“You have failed to disprove the notion that any pattern can be regarded as information, as is currently upheld by science.”
–What information is unveiled to us from a look at any given mountain top? Is there something more when we look at mount Rushmore?
Again, there is a difference between pattern and information. The laws of physics can tell us a lot about the behavior of matter in various situations, geology can tell us about possible past physical happenings, and other fields can tell us other things.
It is absolutely necessary to have irregularity in information. Take any given book. Open it. Does it convey information by a repeating of the word ‘the?’ No, certainly not… This blog, or any comment on this page, are they repetitive, self-ordering, mantras? There is great irregularity in information, like mt Rushmore, like a computer program, like DNA! You cannot get any of those, information loaded entities without an intelligence guiding it.
“As I said, that is actually a very complicated question due to the nature of time.”
–well, then let me clear thing up for you. Time had to start at some point as far as science can understand/prove… Hawking acknowledges this! If time had to have a beginning, then matter had a beginning because as you said “one can not really exist without the other.” Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The only viable explanation is an intelligence decided to make this universe, no other theory can explain existence as well as intelligent design.
“Your point being?”
If you missed my point, then I feel there is little I can help you with because it is a painfully obvious point. I would rather not waste my time explaining basic logic to you.
“Josephus was born after Jesus died so any information he gathered was second hand in the very best case.” What is your point? 🙂
If your point is that the information is unreliable, then I am affraid there is a lot about history that you are doubtful of. Most of history is second hand, or even 3-5 generations handed down, especially ancient literature.
“The historians I know of highly doubt the credibility of his vague reference to Jesus.” The question of whether Josephus wrote that Jesus was the Messiah is controversial. I would tend to think that it was added, unfortunately, by someone after the works because it was written in the margins of some of the manuscripts. However, Josephus DID write about Jesus teaching, leading, and having great authority. These are facts. Whether the fringe argue that or not.
“No one takes the Illiad as 100% literal history. It was a story based somewhat loosely on historical events.”
-Nor was Homers intention to write down literal history. As, your man, Pascal wrote:
“Homer wrote a romance, for nobody supposes that Troy and Agamemnon existed any more than the apples of the Hesperides. He had no intention to write history, but only to amuse us.”
— However, Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John ALL intended to write down REAL, ACTUAL, historical events exactly as they saw them.
Not to mention that everything Luke wrote down regarding geography has been proven wrong. There are examples of people challenging the accuracy of Luke, only to find a new discovery that proves he was right on!! This means that Luke is generally regarded as accurate in the other stuff he wrote down. Namely his gospel!
“For example, if Zeus is the one true god then all you’re doing is pissing him off even more.”
—- this plus the following—-
“Optimus is being used here as a satirical jab at the sheer foolishness of religion everywhere.”
My question remains. I am talking about you, not other people. Are you going to base your *possible* eternal life based on the fact that some other religion might be right? Wouldn’t it be better to accept ANY one religion, than to waste your life not following any?
It goes back to:
“But what if I am right in the end? If you continue in your non-belief of Jesus as your savior, and I am correct when you die.. What would you have lost?”
“You can’t fake true belief to a supposedly omniscient deity.”
—Why do you feel the need to fake? Have I not even given you the possibility of the existence of a deity? I do not carry on with this discussion for my sake. Again, it is for your benefit, as I believe.
If you truely believe that Zues is the one True God that makes sense of this existence, then I would recommend taking him seriously:)
ttfn
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 8, 2009
at 1:48 pm
HAHAHA!
I am very tired.
“Not to mention that everything Luke wrote down regarding geography has been proven wrong.”
I meant to write nothing Luke recorded has been proven wrong!
sorry
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 8, 2009
at 1:53 pm
I disagree since they’re all arguing for the status of the one person on a religious basis, which can lend to collaboration and editing.
And it’s not ‘slight variances’, they get basic facts wrong between the different gospels. If they can’t even get those straight, it dramatically hurts their credibility.
Your examples only go to prove my point. The gospels, according to your own flawed analogies, only demonstrate that the gospels are unable to communicate an inerrant divine message – once that flawlessness is gone, the entire issue of credibility is front and centre.
No, it’s not. It’s also not even science since you’re starting at a conclusion (there is an intelligence) and looking for facts to support it (ooh, information! I win!).
There is a great deal of difference between biological organisms and a programming language as even the most basic courses/knowledge of biology would tell you.
“Hey, there’s a mountain. Cool. It’s made of rock. It looks like it has trees on it. Maybe some snow. It requires further investigation!”
Musgrave (2003) would disagree and that seems to be the accepted view of the scientific community.
That’s classic god of the gaps arguing right there and is invalid just like every other god of the gaps argument.
Jesus was an extremely common name of the time and self proclaimed prophets were a dime a dozen. This in no way, even if assumed to be true, supports the notion that Jesus was divine in any way.
You do not know that. In fact, it is something that is unknowable. It is quite possible, in fact probable, that they wrote down all that which they thought would help the spread of what they thought was the truth. Huge difference there.
Really? Did he mention Nazareth? Because it’s kind of been shown that place didn’t exist until the quite a long time later. Luke also wrote about a census which required people to return to the city of their ancestors … of which there is no record and makes absolutely no sense (and certainly doesn’t fit with Roman methodology).
No, simply because there’s no credible evidence for ANY of them. By your logic I should choose some random mythological creature to believe in case one of them exists.
For the sake of accuracy I have never claimed something can not exist. What I claim is that there is zero evidence for any sort of deity figure. Therefore the logical assumption has to be it does not exist (much like Russel’s Celestial Teapot).
By: Matt on May 8, 2009
at 4:48 pm
duhfg
“which can lend to collaboration and editing.”
True it CAN, but is there any evidence that they did collaborate?
“The gospels, according to your own flawed analogies, only demonstrate that the gospels are unable to communicate an inerrant divine message”
I don’t think that every single detail of what the church leaders wrote was “inerrant,” I don’t think any knowledgable person does. The point is that there are central messages that can be understood from the text. Remember that men wrote the new testament. If one writes that two angels were there, and another writes that one was there, that doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Actually neither have to be wrong. They can both be correct at the same time. Again, it’s called point of view. Just like my example,
The transformers movie will be talked about from various details. Some might focus on the dialogue, but some, like me, love the action and special FX. So, I would talk a lot about those features. Two (sounding like) completely different reviews can be given of the same movie. EVEN if we sat in the same theater, and watched the same matinee!
“It’s also not even science since you’re starting at a conclusion (there is an intelligence) and looking for facts to support it ”
What about the Miller-Urey experiment? This test was done to see if amino acids could be formed from “natural” conditions. Is this not starting from a conclusion that we came from nothing… aka atheistic conclusions?
“Musgrave (2003) would disagree and that seems to be the accepted view of the scientific community.”
It depends on the sampling of the ‘scientific’ community you ask. Information can be interpreted different ways, you are simply taking the one I was refering to, and calling it something else. I am talking about information as communication, just one type of information. Not in the sense of having a receiver who ‘understands’ the message, but never-the-less communication. It’s about objectivity, irregularity in the message, yet complexity at the same time.
Stephen Meyer said:
“The coding regions of DNA have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language…. whenever you find a sequential arrangement that’s complex and corresponds to an independant pattern or functional requirement, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties. We know that books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.”
You say that a dropped glass contains the same information, but I may get a totally different message from the shards of glass than you did. Namely because there IS no representation. The type of information I am talking about is the type where you cannot assume a disconnect from the object and its representation. A mountain means (REPRESENTS) nothing to anybody. However, mount Rushmore represents(communicates) a few dead presidents. Windows operating system represents the code that spell out the directions needed to perform a task. DNA represents the code that spell out the order needed of amino acids to make complex proteins, which are the foundations for life.
“That’s classic god of the gaps arguing right there ”
It is not ‘god of the gaps.’ God of the gaps means to run to religion when you cannot explain something in science. I am not running to religion because other scientific theories fall short, I am looking at something called intelligent design which, again, is something we witness happening every day. It is happening right now in this blog. To say that DNA has a naturalistic cause, is to also say that this comment right here was randomly printed on this screen by… well, you explain it because I cannot really come up with a good example of this happening. Obviously your comments came from intelligence, my comments came from intelligence… If this isn’t the result of intelligence, then why would you continue to argue? It would be like arguing with nothing because there is nothing beyond the shards of glass that spread out on the floor!
Another thing about information that you mis-understand:
Information requires variability, irregularity, and unpredictability. Your example of a broken glass, is Not information because it contains the categorically opposite of complexity… that is something called simple order.
Simple order in DNA doesn’t work. Let’s say every time you have cytosine, it would attract say, adenine. There would be no information in that particular code because there would be no irregularity. Similarly, if I opened this blog and I just saw the word ‘Optimus’ repeated over and over and over again with nothing else, then not one ounce of information would be conveyed. There would be a great deal of simple order, but not information which we DO find in DNA.
“This in no way, even if assumed to be true, supports the notion that Jesus was divine in any way.”
Yes, but that attestation coupled with the witnesses found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are STRONG evidences that point towards validating Jesus’ deity.
“what they thought was the truth.”
Everything in life is based on what we believe, nothing is certain. Obviously they believed fully about what they wrote, which means they wrote what they thought would help spread what they believed. Also, no one argues about the history of the first church. They were all tortured to death for their convictions. Why die for something that they knew was not true? Of course, they were totally convinced!
“Because it’s kind of been shown that place didn’t exist until the quite a long time later.”
How has that been shown?
On the contrary, Dr. Strange, of the university of South Florida, is an expert in this area, and says that it was a very small town about sixty acres, and no more than about 450 people. The vast majority of archaeologists do not dispute the location.existence of Nazareth. the burden is on the skeptic actually. Prove it didn’t exist.
“of which there is no record and makes absolutely no sense (and certainly doesn’t fit with Roman methodology).”
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! You’re wrong again.
Dr. John McRay, of Wheaton college and the most respected of archaeology, quotes this in his text book:
“Gaius Vibius Maximus, Perfect of Egypt[says]: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”
“What I claim is that there is zero evidence for any sort of deity figure.”
There is plenty. You are just hardened into not accepting the objective reality in front of your face. It is sad.
Answer this one question for me.
Where did matter come from?
And don’t say that you cannot answer it because it is too inter-locked with time, and therefore too difficult to understand… come on…
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 10, 2009
at 1:30 am
You better inform all those people that buy into the extremely silly young earth creationism story then.
And the same goes for a great number of stories/books. Asops Fables, for example. The Illiad. Beowulf. Etc, etc.
There is a great deal of difference between there being one angel and being two angels. If recounters of the tale can not get such a basic detail correct (and let’s face it, angels would be damn hard to miss) then it hurts their entire credibility. Trying to pass that off as ‘difference of perspective’ is a gross intellectual cop-out.
Yet it seems extremely unlikely reviewers would get the number of Optimus Prime’s in the movie confused.
1) That’s dodging the question, badly attempting to try an argument “He did it as well!” which is just plain childish.
2) It’s a false comparison since science only deals with what is observable and testable. Someone came up with the hypothesis that a process occurred a certain way in certain conditions – it would be the complete opposite of science not to test said hypothesis.
Overall and vast, vast majority obviously. Intelligent design is not regarded as science by any credible scientist that I am aware of. It does not meet the criteria for something to be considered science and is supported by no evidence.
Now stop repeating yourself, it’s not doing you any good. Repetition does not generate truth in science.
ID is nothing but a god of the gaps argument in a funny hat. It’s also just one large argument from incredulity so it wins the double whammy award for silliness. Advocates of it go “It’s remarkable how this happened, I can’t believe it! An intelligence of some sort (don’t mention god!) must have done it!”
And don’t try to make false analogies between DNA and intelligent communication – the research is plentiful on the steps for DNA formation (eg, examples I’ve already linked to).
It’s also regarded that passage was fraudulent, as I think I already linked to a nice breakdown of. And again the gospels are not credible evidence so they were clearly written to be propaganda pieces to support an emerging religious movement – it’d be much like Tom Cruise writing about the wisdom of L Ron Hubbard and his work being found a couple of centuries later.
The first and second parts of that sentence don’t quite mesh that well. On one hand you’re saying they wrote what they believed, on the other you’re saying they wrote what they thought would help their cause. One is truth, one is propaganda.
Regardless, just because they believed something does not validate the truth of said belief.
Also, no one argues about the history of the first church. They were all tortured to death for their convictions. Why die for something that they knew was not true? Of course, they were totally convinced!
Meyer has not been credible for some time now. His subversion of the peer review process, his bald faced lying about his relationship to the Smithsonian Institute, bacterial flagellum idiocy, the various bits of quote mining he’s done through the years, etc etc.
You can (in most circumstances) not prove a negative very easily, especially one based in history like this. Don’t be silly. On the other hand there are the following strong indicators it didn’t exist in Jesus’ time:
* Not mentioned at all in the OT.
* The Talmud, though listing a great many Gallilean towns, does not list it.
* No ancient historian and/or geographer mentions the place at all.
* Jospehus (hey, isn’t he your reference from earlier) did extensive travels of the area and doesn’t mention the town.
* The first reference about a place with such a name does not appear until the 3rd or 4th century.
* Origen had no idea where the town was
Strange’s work on the topic has also been subject to change. He originally thought it had around 2,000 people in it but then had to scale it right back to a “maximum of 480”.
Matthew and Luke repeatedly describe it as a city but a settlement of 2000 does not rate as a city, let alone 480 – that’s barely a hamlet.
In regard to the census, don’t dodge the question (Gaius Vibius Maximus had authority from 103-107, some time after the time in question). If the census was for taxation purposes, which is how the story goes, it would be insane for people to have to stop work (there goes the economy) and travel hundreds of miles to give information about where they lived and worked – when it would have been much easier to simply ask them where they happened to work.
The census also causes other large problems for gospel proponents. Matthew and Luke certainly can’t agree when it happened (up to a decade difference!) and if such a thing did take place it would be hardly something you can foul up pointing at on a calendar. There’s that big credibility monster raising it’s head again.
No other sources mention a roman empire wide census (which really would be a nightmare on several levels) but such censuses (and yes, some were done) applied only to roman citizens. They also didn’t have to return to their ancestral homes.
This is possibly the worst sort of argument christians (or people of any religion) can bring forth. I had attributed you with more intellectual honesty that that.
Oh well.
Now you’re running full pelt at an argument from incredulity and (once again) a god of the gaps argument; “Science can’t explain it so god did it!”
By: Matt on May 10, 2009
at 5:18 am
Zombie Jesus… nice- this proves you have no understanding of the Scripture.
By: tom on May 10, 2009
at 8:28 am
jdiug
“Asops Fables, for example. The Illiad. Beowulf. Etc, etc.”
And, again these were never meant to be literal accounts of what took place, just stories with purposes. However, the narratives of Jesus were the explosion of a church that enjoys millions of believers today. Yeah, that was all based on “mis-understandings!”
“There is a great deal of difference between there being one angel and being two angels.”
You’re rioght there is a difference objectively! However, these are subjective accounts of what happened. Again, if we went to see Optimus duke it out with the decepticons, and you told a mutual friend that the central theme was to show the transformers kicking butt all around the universe, and I told them that it was a story of a boy becoming a man, and learning responsibility -ie Witwicky- Does that mean that neither of us saw the movie? Or that the movie never existed?
“angels would be damn hard to miss”
Only if you assume that they were seen as depicted in fantasy movies with giant sweeping wings, and booming voices, and glowing orbs around them! Often angels appear as men in the bible.
“Yet it seems extremely unlikely reviewers would get the number of Optimus Prime’s in the movie confused.
Again, that would be an example of a central theme, not a fringe detail. Get your arguments straight. Making false parallels also doesn’t help your case.
“That’s dodging the question”
Whether you call it childish or not, it remains a valid argument.
“It’s a false comparison since science only deals with what is observable and testable. Someone came up with the hypothesis that a process occurred a certain way in certain conditions – it would be the complete opposite of science not to test said hypothesis.”
And again, intelligent design is observed around us every single day in everything that intelligent beings produce. Computers, programs, cars, airplanes…. so, by your argument it would be the complete opposite of science to not delve into this theory!
“vast majority obviously.”
Not true.
“Intelligent design is not regarded as science by any credible scientist that I am aware of. ”
You don’t know too many of them obviously.
“It does not meet the criteria for something to be considered science and is supported by no evidence.”
There is tons of evidence like those I have outlined.
“Advocates of it go “It’s remarkable how this happened, I can’t believe it! An intelligence of some sort (don’t mention god!) must have done it!””
Actually, the scientists who formulated the theory are first of all plenty. Second, They don’t run to God because other thoeries fall short, they found a theory that has the most explanatory power. That is a basic, and commonly used reasoning called, theory to the best explanation, not ‘god of the gaps’ as you keep trying to claim.
“the research is plentiful on the steps for DNA formation (eg, examples I’ve already linked to).”
Tell me, how does DNA form naturally in your words. Paraphrase for me.
“It’s also regarded that passage was fraudulent”
I do believe that PARTS of that particular text were fraudulent, but Josephus still did mention Jesus. Many other mention Christ too. For you to say that there are no extra-biblical basis for Jesus, is an admitance of ignorance in History, and a waste of my time to argue it.
“The first and second parts of that sentence don’t quite mesh that well.”
So you’re saying that if you believed whole-heartedly that Optimus was your savior, and god, then you wouldn’t go around and tell people about the events that lead you to this conclusion.
“Meyer has not been credible for some time now.”
From the discovery institute website:
“Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology”
Well, I am sure he is smarter than you or me, and more qualified to talk on the subject at hand.
You claim that he hasn’t been credible for some time now. I am just spit-balling here, but would that time be roughly about the time he put forth the theory of intelligent design? You are just like all the other circular arguing atheists out there. Ben Stein just made a movie about this. You say, Intelligent design isn’t Science. Why? Because it isn’t published in peer reviewed journals. Why isn’t it in peer reviewed journals? Because it isn’t science. hugh?
Actually, it was in a peer-reviewed journal, and the guy who published it(Richard Sternberg) lost his job, and was black-balled from the scientific community. Why would any editor put intelligent design in their journal now? Whatever happened to freedom of inquiry?
“You can (in most circumstances) not prove a negative very easily, especially one based in history like this.”
It sounds like you have faith then, in the non-existence of Nazareth. Who has the motive now?
There are other evidences. Nazareth is mentioned as a refuge when people left Rome. Burial cites have been excavated just outside where the city is located, which is in following with jewish law/custom…
“No ancient historian and/or geographer mentions the place at all.”
Except Luke.
“Jospehus (hey, isn’t he your reference from earlier) did extensive travels of the area and doesn’t mention the town.”
I have friends who have visited my home-town tons of times taking in the historical sites, and they still have moments where they go “wow! I never knew that little town was there.”
“Strange’s work on the topic has also been subject to change.”
So??? Scientist once thought the Earth was flat. It is new evidences that change scientists belief.
“The first reference about a place with such a name does not appear until the 3rd or 4th century”
OHHH! So, this is why we don’t believe Nazareth existed. I get it?…?…/???
“(Gaius Vibius Maximus had authority from 103-107, some time after the time in question).”
This still proves that census DID take place. Some say that he ruled as early as the 90’s, even so neither are a long time to discredit the fact that census did take place.
“Science can’t explain it so god did it!”
No!
“Science can’t explain it, AND intelligent design can be inferred based on uniformitarian logic, therefore and intelligence must have done it!”
But nice try at twisting what I said, and avoiding the question completely…
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 11, 2009
at 1:56 pm
And you’re saying the Bible, both OT and NT, is a literal account of history? If you are then you’re a young earth creationist which is just silly. If you’re not then you have to start being subjective as to what was a story and what was meant to be a real account … and which point the Bible’s credibility once again goes completely out the window.
If you’re saying that the NT is a literal recount then you’re just being silly since a great deal of what is said does not match known evidence (a massive eclipse which we know didn’t happen, for example).
Appeal to popularity fallacy.
And it’s a basic fact which the authors couldn’t agree on, which goes directly against their credibility. It’s one thing to analyse different aspects of a story, as per your example, but when you’re trying to describe the same exact scene (and not overall message) and you can’t get your stories straight on the basic facts … you’re just wasting time.
Then how would the witnesses know? Do angels have special badges they flash to believers?
“Arch-angel Gabriel, Angel Squad. Just tell us the facts, Ma’am.”
Glowy auras believers can see? Nope, that’d make them stand out?
Or maybe it was just a case of believers being a tad desperate for some sign of holy involvement and started labelling normal people who were just hanging about as angels and then fudging the story a bit to make it sound better for the readers.
I think you should be saying that to yourself. Basic facts, such as time of census’ taken and number of angels etc, is not a fringe detail. It’s a basic fact.
Again, false comparison. We have evidence mechanical things are designed since we have factories, engineers, scientific principles the devices are based on, etc. We have no evidence biological systems were designed.
You seem to be making an appeal to the Watchmaker argument, which is silly.
Then kindly point me to the large scientific bodies who recognise ID as proper and true science and are carrying out full research in the field. The only bodies that are would be places such as the Discovery Institute and their credibility amongst science is … well, non-existent.
All the evidence you’ve supplied for ID has been far from specific and linked to no peer reviewed research (which is what science kind of needs). Your sole argument so far for ID can be summed up as “It looks designed so it must have been designed!” which is absurd.
How about no? You’ve got the research linked to, it’s been done. It’s been peer reviewed. It’s been verified. It’s counted as science. If you’re too lazy to read the research yourself, I’m not going to spend the considerable time it would take to explain it.
And so what? All Jospehus said was there was a guy walking about called Jesus teaching (more or less). In current day terms, that’d be like saying someone called John was in the Utah area teaching.
1) Extremely common name in that era. Jesus’ were thick on the ground.
2) It does absolutely nothing to establish divine status.
And some of these credible sources would be?
Once again, you’re missing the point completely. It does not matter how firmly they believed it to be true, the level of their belief in no way validates said belief. If you want to use that logic then every deity who has ever had a zealot bunch of followers (which would be about all of them) would be true.
And again, Meyer is considered as something of a fool by the wider scientific community because he has repeatedly acted dishonestly and has purposefully corrupted scientific review to achieve his own ends.
Oh wow, you actually bought into that movie? Amazing. Here’s a clue for you: http://www.expelledexposed.com
Such a claim does not match up with the evidence available, oddly enough.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
Now you’re being absurd (which seems to be a pattern, to be honest). Logical reasoning demands that if there is no evidence for the existence of something then you must assume it doesn’t exist. Russel’s Celestial Teapot is a great example of this.
And his credibility is so fantastic, isn’t it? Mr I-Can’t-Count-to-two or I can’t work out when the census was, etc etc.
Jospehus was actually noted as being extremely thorough with his work. That he’d miss a town which was a central point of a local and quickly expanding religion is extremely unlikely to say the least.
Yes, science does change it’s mind. There’s generally no problem with that and it’s actually a great thing. But when a certain scientist makes such a huge discrepancy in his work then it starts to affect his credibility.
In the time of jesus. Next time I think I’ll have to use diagrams…
Census’ did take place, yes. No one is arguing against that. When you have a large empire such as the Roman one, they were actually kind of necessary.
However, they did not happen as described in the Bible by any measure.
Census’ only applied to roman citizens (not foreigners, slaves, freed men, etc) and did not require them to travel anywhere.
By: Matt on May 11, 2009
at 5:12 pm
tjh
“And you’re saying the Bible, both OT and NT, is a literal account of history?”
What I am saying is that we can trust historical documents until there is some reason to believe that there is something that doesn’t make sense. Remember that the ‘bible’ is a collection of books, so one book might be unreliable. We shouldn’t throw out everything that is associated with religion because one thing APPEARS to be contrary.
Like the Earth being thousands of years old. I am a scientist at heart, so I cannot say that the Earth is as old as the bible appears to claim it is. However, something for consideration is maybe time to this intelligent mind, who would be beyond time, could be something that we do not recognize. Maybe 500 years on Earth are the equivalent to one day for the mind that intelligently created this…
“a massive eclipse which we know didn’t happen,”
Scholar Paul Maier wrote about an event in his book Pontius Pilate:
“According to Tertullian… it was a cosmic or world event. Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (ie. 33AD) there was the ‘greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘ it became night in teh sixth hour of the day(ie. noon) so that stars even appeared in teh heavens.”—-The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel.
“Appeal to popularity fallacy.”
No. I am not saying that people are Christians solely because there are already a whole bunch of people who believe. I am saying that millions of people believe in Christs’ deity for various reasons, including the historical documentation.
“And it’s a basic fact which the authors couldn’t agree on”
No. They agree that there was one angel. One just included another angel that was apparently there too. This doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Bill Craig said “So we have great confidence in the core that’s common to the narratives and that would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today, even if there are some differences concerning the names of the women, the exact time of morning, the number of the angels, and so forth. Those kind of secondary discrepencies wouldn’t bother a historian.” (Lee Strobel)
“Then how would the witnesses know? Do angels have special badges they flash to believers?”
It was probably apparent after the fact. The inplicit knowledge that the angels had is not something common to the average Joe.
“Basic facts, such as time of census’ taken and number of angels etc, is not a fringe detail. It’s a basic fact.” I have given evidence that census’ were happening in that time frame.
Ok, let’s say you saw your leader raised form the dead after being brutally tortured, and slaughtered. You discover that HE was the one you have been looking for. You have this immense epiphany!!!! You are writing down the facts independant from any others You would concern yourself with secondary details like exact names of the group that went to the tomb first, exactly who was there….? That would be HIGHLY questionable if that were what the documents said.
I, Matt, went to Jesus’ tomb with Bob Smith, John Redcorn, Bobby Hill, and Ted Stevens. We saw three angels, two just sat there, but one said “….” I ran along with Bobby and Ted, while Bob and John stayed behind, 500 paces to the other apostels who were as follows – – – – -…..?????
—No, probably not. This isn’t a crime scene, it is a recollection of an amazing event. The focal theme of which, was Jesus was gone…?
“We have evidence mechanical things are designed since we have factories, engineers, scientific principles the devices are based on, etc”
Factories cannot produce irregular-complex(information) things like computers! There has to be an intelligence behind the machines. Thank you for proving my point. Engineers are intelligent beings. Scientific principles cannot convey irregularity and complexity at the same time. Like the self ordering of Na and Cl in salt, they are in order…. What intelligence does is create irregularity that is complex AND specific.
“Your sole argument so far for ID can be summed up as “It looks designed so it must have been designed!”
Hardly!
“You’ve got the research linked to, it’s been done.”
It’s apparently been done, yet you cannot even give a short paraphrase of how it happened? I find that suspect. Maybe I will look into those ‘findings’ for myself.
“2) It does absolutely nothing to establish divine status.”
My case is a cummulative case, and this is just one part. I never claimed it establishes His divinity. On the contrary, if you read what I wrote I won’t have to waste my time re-telling you.
“the level of their belief in no way validates said belief.”
There is no reason to say that the gospels are bad history. You haven’t even come close to disproving them. The burden is on you, and the wealth of evidence is overwhelming your case.
“And again, Meyer is considered as something of a fool by the wider scientific community”
I guess a doctorate from Cambridge means nothing. Again, as you said yourself, popular opinion doesn’t give proof of a theory! Yes, Meyer is against the majority of scientists, but so was Copernicus when he said the Earth was round. What does that tell us?
“And some of these credible sources would be?”
What about Guillermo Gonzalez? Would you consider him to be credible?
“if there is no evidence for the existence of something”
How about:
—-“Well, Strange notes that when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, priests were no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed, so they were sent out to various other locations, even up into Galilee. Archaelogists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four ‘courses,’ or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. That shows that this tiny village must have been there at the time.” (Strobel)
And…
“there have been archaeological digs that have uncovered first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth, which would establish the village’s limits because by Jewish law burials had to take place outside the town proper. Two tombs contained objects such as pottery lamps, glass vessels, and vases from the first, third, or fourth centuries.”
And…
“McRay picked up a copy of a book by renowned archaeologist Jack Finegan, published by Princeton University Press. He leafed through it, then read Finegan’s analysis: “From the tombs … it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period.”
No evidence? What kind of evidence are you looking for?
“makes such a huge discrepancy in his work then it starts to affect his credibility.”
Like ummmmmmm,, say Copernicus? hmmmm? Does that mean Copernicus is wrong? Is the Earth flat Matt?
“However, they did not happen as described in the Bible by any measure.”
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of history it seems.
You see, the bible is a collection of books. They were put together because they all had information regarding a belief that blossomed from seemingly nowhere. It is natural that they were put together in one collection. You making sweeping claims like the ‘bible’ claims opposing stuff, so religion must be wrong. You do not understand basics of corroboration, and other historical tests of legitimacy.
The point is that census’ that presumabely never occured turned out to be going on as the evidence is uncovered literally. Yet, you STILL cannot allow yourself to follow the evidence.
And ,in case you missed it, I will repeat my very simple question:
“Where did matter come from?”
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 13, 2009
at 6:34 pm
wow, ask a physicist. And i can answer that last question: What matter? The universe’s total energy is 0. The fact that there is a large amount in the universe today has to do with thiese very complicated thingies called “force fields” you know, like magnetic feilds, gravitational feilds, that sort of thing. they cancel out, but gravity was at one point in the very distant past inverted for a split second, creating a surge of growth in the size of the universe, and when that quantum flucuation settled down into it’s normal energetic state, the energy was relinquished as matter. Hydrogen and some helium, mind you, but all that was necessary for the universe to unfold as it has…
But inflationary cosmology deals with all that matter. Read the Elegent Universe and educate yourself will you?
Seriously, we Don’t have all the answers. the reason you claim to is becasue you are delusional. No one knows, not even posited God. He cannot invalidate the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle, and he cannot know how to change his own mind. He cannot learn or develop. In short, God is dead, just like Neitsche said.
By: Rickr0ll on May 13, 2009
at 11:22 pm
Rickroll, you’re missing something…
” and when that quantum flucuation settled down into it’s normal energetic state, the energy was relinquished as matter.”
Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? This energy field is a REAL physical thing, that can be described by physics, and has a rich environment. So, your ‘explanation’ just upped the anty. Now, you need to explain where that energy field came from.
I am familiar with quantum mechanics, and know of the “Heisenburg Uncertainty principle.”
The meshing of this area of science with Einsteins theory cannot and indeed HAS not been proven by traditional scientific fields. That is WHY something beyond traditional science is required to explain existence.
There NEEDS to be something that CAUSED the universe/matter/energy…. that is beyond/outside of time. The only thing that works are concepts outside of traditional science. i.e. theology, philosophy, metaphysics…
the next question is where do we go to? Well, look at the other evidences out there. History, geography, archaeology, biology…
Intelligent design has the most explanatory power, therefore by inference to the best explanation, ID is the best answer.
“the reason you claim to is becasue you are delusional”
1) I never claimed that I knew it all.
2) delusional? come on….
inflationary cosmology runs into more errors than ID. ID can explain more.
The only model that doesn’t lead to a singularity, and therefore a beginning is a model from Hawking. The problem with his model is that it is based on imaginary numbers. This is the only way he can hold the shape that HIDES the singularity that is REALLY always there. If you put REAL numbers into his equations, the singularity re-appears. (Bill Craig)
So, where did this -matter/Energy field- come from?
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 14, 2009
at 1:18 am
I should say,
I should say that the FIRST cosmological modelt hat hides a singularity was from Hawking. There are a few out there now, but they all do the same thing. They are only theoretical, imaginary numbers, that hide the singularity when the equation is converted into REAL numbers…
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 14, 2009
at 1:22 am
you miss the point entirely. There fluctuation has always occured. Your basically asking when did matter and energy Not oscillate. The only problem with that question is that it has No physical meaning.
Besides, having a beginning has nothing to do with the Creator. You are making things up when you say that Something outside the universe must have caused it to exist becasue then you have to expalin That- your problem now being and infinite entiry instead of a finite, self-contained spacetime. There is no reason to believe that there IS anything outside the universe. To say that there is is to merely invoke the redefinition of “Universe”, which, as i Just stated, is only coming back to bite itself.
And we are working on ways to merge the two pillars of science. You argument rests on a foundational Argument from Incredulity. We don’t know yet, has not, and will never translate into, “God did it”. God did it has 0 explanetory power becuase it is by definition, beyond all possible explanation. You admit defeat when you ask God “how”.
By: Rickr0ll on May 14, 2009
at 7:36 pm
uygv
“There fluctuation has always occured.”
Impossible.
This energy OR matter would absolutely have to be occuring in time. According to accepted scientists around the globe, and experimental data, there was nothing before time=0.
If these fields ‘always occured,’ then that would mean that we have passed through an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of events, and have arrived at today. This is absurd!
“that question is that it has No physical meaning”
These energy fields you write about are rich seas of fluctuating energy, that can be described within the realm of physics, with real numbers. This means that time HAS to be running at the moment that these energy fields existed. Leading us back to infinite regression of events. You cannot traverse an infinite. It leads to contradicting statements so cannot be true.
“having a beginning has nothing to do with the Creator.”
My argument isn’t to argue a creator per se. It is to argue that we NEED to go beyond science to explain our scientific world. Whether that is philosophy, theology, or metaphysics, is a mute point. Who or what the first cause is a whole other discussion.
“Something outside the universe must have caused it to exist becasue then you have to expalin That”
It is clear that science can only take us so far. Basically there are lots and lots of theories. Why? Because science cannot explain itself. We need to go beyond because we will never reach a point where things pop into existence from nothing, out of nothing, and for no reason.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
“We don’t know yet, ”
This isn’t MY argument, although your argument sounds like that. We don’t know yet, so I think some mysterious multiverse theory is the answer! hugh?!!!
My argument is this:
1) We don’t know yet.
2) We know that information is the product of intelligent minds.
3) Various entities contained in the universe convey information, and are therefore the products of an intelligent mind. i.e. DNA
This is called inference to the best explanation, a commonly used scientific principle. Not God-of-the-gaps, nor incredulity.
g’night!
By: conservativeconcepts4thenewmill on May 15, 2009
at 1:50 am
i think its funny and i was actually goign to be a pastor..but what im starting to see is..if God gets upset at somethign like this..than that sucks.
By: plummercor on December 10, 2009
at 11:21 pm
Hello there, Happy April Fool’s Day!!!
Abe goes to see his boss and says, “We’re doing some heavy house-cleaning at home tomorrow for Pesach and my wife needs me to help with the attic and the garage, moving and hauling stuff.”
“We’re short-handed, Abe,” the boss replies. “I just can’t give you the day off.”
“Thanks, boss,” says Moshe, “I knew I could count on you!”
Happy April Fool’s Day!
By: My on April 2, 2010
at 2:51 am
Happy Zombie Jesus Day everybody 🙂
By: chocolate bonaboo on April 4, 2010
at 9:24 pm
Well, we all have opinions, to bad its presented in this way, sigh well thank you for the warm exception of my religion, yea God bless.
GIR WHY WASD THEIR BACON IN THE SOAP.
I MADE IT MYSELF.
By: IloveJesus on May 23, 2010
at 8:59 pm