Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

1. Demonstrating that you have authority over the laws of physics establishes metaphysical possibilities that must be incorporated into a view of reality.
2. Part of the Judaeo/Christian concept of God is the idea of worthy of worship. You don't establish this by only performing miracles, you establish this by a message/context. The overall message of Jesus is compelling--he has insight on man's true nature, the underlying problems, and provides answers that connect to people on the deepest level.
3. Therefore believing Jesus' claim he is God is derived inductively--not deductively. The difference is that the former is probabilistic and the latter is certain.  


If only scientism was defined somewhere...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

You seem to like applying scientific standards to acquiring knowledge to inappropriate areas so the shoe seems to fit. Don't think so? tell me areas of legit knowledge that are not scientific.


You are confusing something. I have only EVER pointed to the reasons I believe (including the NT, personal experiences (mine and others), and natural theology). I have never claimed to have proof. Question: do you think my beliefs are irrational?

Answer: I think you think you have good reason for your beliefs. I will not take that away from you. Of course I think you're beliefs are irrational, if I didn't I would likely believe the same as you ya? Seems like a silly question.

Actually it's not a silly question because--and this is important--the moment you say my belief is irrational (which is based on the list below), you have LOST the debate. I show an inductive argument on how I arrive at the belief. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. You cannot prove any of these premises are false--let alone all of them. The moment you played the game, you lost. To succeed in your 'irrational' claim, you would have to prove the concept of God irrational--something no one has ever been able to do.

REFERENCE:
P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
    In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
    a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
    b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
    c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
    d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
    e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
    f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
    g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
    h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
    i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
    j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
    k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
    l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural.

Again, these mindless accusations of inappropriate application of evedentiary standards without defining what you're talking about. I am pretty sure I asked you to define these various forms of evidence, and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

As for your insult that I am some sort of a scientism person.... Again the claim is nonsensical to anyone. Define an alternate form of evidence which I'm missing that has been demonstrated to being capable of acquiring knowledge.

As for other forms of knowledge, after a fashion you could say philosophy is a form of knowledge. Which I do venture in to from time to time. My problem with philosophy is many people give it more weight than it deserves. It's important, it's valuable, it can tell you a lot about yourself and other humans, and nothing about the world outside your head. Same with many forms of psychology. Still those are forms of knowledge I accept that are not derived from the scientific method. I also do not demand the application of scientific method for everything. I fix electronics and computers, programming that kinda shit. I use abductive (what the fuck is with this spell checker not knowing words I use..... it keeps telling me I spell shit wrong, and since I'm not good at spelling I go double check and find out I was right.... it's annoying) reasoning and digital and electronic forensics techniques to quickly solve problems, I also fix motors all sorts of shit. If I need speed as opposed to accuracy I have one method of quickly coming to an answer. If I need accuracy over speed then I use methods more along the line of the scientific method. However I am not a scientist. Hell I'm not even educated. The kind of education I have values accuracy because mistakes will get you killed, so my thinking tends to reflect that. I also am extremely tired of asinine bullshit. 

"After a fashion", "more weight than it deserves"?? Do you realize that science is founded on philosophy? To even get to your very first experiment, a philosophy of science has to be adopted?

"Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science --your really need to read through this article.

You said before you want people to ask you questions especially if they want to understand your point of view. My answer is fuck no dude. Not until you give in kind. Turn about is fair play, the moment you try to understand where we're coming from instead of insulting us for using higher evidentiary standards than you employ that is the moment I'll begin to meet you half way. Deal? 

Your view has been made quite clear: I am wrong and irrational. That's where I am starting.

Edit: also what kinda asinine argument is that? "You're standards for evidence are too high, you just need to open your mind and take my word for it then you'll believe" like what? Been abducted by aliens lately? Crop circles? You do realize this is the kind of argument those nutters make yes? And with good reason.

Keep in mind I do know the traditional arguments. I also understand them (well ok to be fair I haven't spent much time reading greek since I was 9 years old, I slowly started to loose interest in christian doctrine and history around that point so I really haven't spent much time with any of it since I turned 18, but at one point I knew this shit like the back of my hand and I am confident I can hold my own, my point remains. Until you demonstrate a willingness to listen to us, I will not pull that shit out of the proverbial cellar of my mind. Earn it).

What are you telling me that I am not listening to? You just repeat over and over and over that I am wrong.

Cute dude. You keep repeating your blind assertions as if those qualify as evidence. Then you say I can't disprove them. Well to be fair every point on that list has been debunked. You expect me to do your job for you. I'm willing to take your points one at a time, but not that wall of text of asinine assertions (and that's what every point on that list is, precisely because you refuse to back up any one of those claims, now if you want to start with point one on your list and provide your justification for it, then I'll play with you. We can work our way down that list from there)

What you are attempting to do is shift the burden of proof. I have made an assertion that I think there is no evidence. This isn't a claim I could demonstrate or falsify because I can't know everything. I could modify it to say I have seen no evidence to support any of your claims or the evidence, which would be in line with what I mean when  I say there's no evidence. I mean are you going to get so nitpicky on that? I admit I can't demonstrate their is no evidence. However you've still not presented any evidence. Only assertions.


@EvieTheAvocado dude You stuck up for this guy. I kinda thought he'd have something better than baseless assertions to throw at me. What is he just trolling or something right now?