Jesus the Apocalyptic Preacher

An excellent introduction to the concept of apocalypticism by Bart Ehrman

In this thread I am trying to argue that Jesus understood himself to be the messiah.  So far I have made one of my two main arguments, with the understanding that *both* arguments have to be considered in order to have a compelling case.  So the first prong doesn’t prove much on its own.  But in combination with the second argument, it makes a strong case.  The first argument is that Jesus’ followers would not have understood him as the messiah after his death (as they did) unless they believed him to be the messiah before his death – even if they came to believe he had been raised from the dead, that would not have made them think he was the messiah.   I’ve explained why in my previous post.

The second involves showing that it was not only the disciples who understood Jesus to be the messiah before his death, but that Jesus himself did.  This is even harder to show, but I think there is really compelling evidence.  There are two major points I’m going to make, from two different sets of data.  But before explaining either one, I have to lay out the overarching context for Jesus’ teaching and ministry, the world view known as Jewish apocalypticism.

Jewish apocalypticism was a very common view in Jesus’ day – it was the view of the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, later of the Apostle Paul – and almost certainly of Jesus.  I can demonstrate that in some later thread if it seems appropriate.  For now, let me just say that this is a widely held view among critical scholars – by far the majority view for over a century, since the writings of Albert Schweitzer.

What did early Jewish apocalypticists believe?  Let me break it down into four component themes.  I have drawn this discussion from my textbook on the New Testament.

Dualism

Jewish apocalypticists were dualists.  That is to say, they maintained that there were two fundamental components to all of reality: the forces of good and the forces of evil.  The forces of good were headed by God himself, the forces of evil by his superhuman enemy, sometimes called Satan, or Beelzebub, or the Devil.  On the side of God were the good angels; on the side of the Devil were the demons.  On the side of God were righteousness and life; on the side of the Devil were sin and death.  These were actual forces, cosmic powers to which human beings could be subject and with which they had to be aligned.  No one was in neutral territory.  People stood either with God or with Satan, they were in the light or in darkness, they were in the truth or in error.

This apocalyptic dualism had clear historical implications.  All of history could be divided into two ages, the present age and the age to come.  The present age was the age of sin and evil, when the powers of darkness were in the ascendancy, when those who sided with God were made to suffer by those in control of this world, when sin, disease, famine, violence, and death were running rampant.  For some unknown reason, God had relinquished control of this age to the powers of evil.  And things were getting worse.

At the end of this age, however, God would reassert himself, intervening in history and destroying the forces of evil.  There would come a cataclysmic break in which all that was opposed to God would be annihilated, and God would bring in a new age.  In this new age, there would be no more suffering or pain; there would be no more hatred, or despair, or war, or disease, or death.  God would be the ruler of all, in a kingdom that would never end.

Pessimism

Even though, in the long run, everything would work out for those who sided with God, in the short term things did not look good.  Jewish apocalypticists maintained that those who sided with God were going to suffer in this age, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.  The forces of evil were going to grow in power as they attempted to wrest sovereignty over this world away from God.  There was no thought here of being able to improve the human condition through mass education or advanced technologies.  The righteous could not make their lives better, because the forces of evil were in control, and those who sided with God were opposed by those who were much stronger than they.  Things would get worse and worse until the very end, when quite literally, all hell was to break loose.

Vindication

But at the end, when the suffering of God’s people was at its height, God would finally intervene on their behalf and vindicate his name.  For in this perspective God was not only the creator of this world, he was also its redeemer.  And his vindication would be universal: it would affect the entire world, not simply the Jewish nation.  Jewish apocalypticists maintained that the entire creation had become corrupt because of the presence of sin and the power of Satan.  This universal corruption required a universal redemption; God would destroy all that is evil and create a new heaven and a new earth, one in which the forces of evil would have no place whatsoever.

Different apocalypticists had different views concerning how God would bring about this new creation, even though they all claimed to have received the details by a revelation from God.  In some apocalyptic scenarios, God was to send a human messiah to lead the troops of the children of light into battle against the forces of evil.  In others, God was to send a kind of cosmic judge of the earth, sometimes also called the messiah or the “Son of Man” to bring about a cataclysmic overthrow of the demonic powers that oppressed the children of light.

This final vindication would involve a day of judgment for all people. Those who had aligned themselves with the powers of evil would face the Almighty Judge, and render an account of what they had done; those who had remained faithful to the true God would be rewarded and brought into his eternal kingdom.  Moreover, this judgment applied not only to people who happened to be living at the time of the end.  No one should think, that is, that he or she could side with the powers of evil, oppress the people of God, die prosperous and contented, and so get away with it.  God would allow no one to escape.  He was going to raise all people bodily from the dead, and they would have to face judgment, eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else.  And there was not a sweet thing that anyone could do to stop him.

Imminence

According to Jewish apocalypticists, this vindicaton of God was going to happen very soon.  Standing in the tradition of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, apocalypticists maintained that God had revealed to them the course of history, and that the end was almost here.  Those who were evil had to repent, before it was too late.  Those who were good, who were suffering as a result, were to hold on.  For it would not be long before God would intervene, sending a savior — possibly on the clouds of heaven in judgment on the earth — bringing with him the good kingdom for those who remained faithful to his Law.  Indeed, the end was right around the corner.  In the words of one first-century Jewish apocalypticist:  “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that that kingdom of God has come with power.”  These in fact are the words of Jesus (Mark 9:1).  Or as he says elsewhere, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30).

Our earliest traditions about Jesus portray him as a Jewish apocalypticist who responded to the political and social crises of his day, including the domination of his nation by a foreign power, by proclaiming that his generation was living at the end of the age, that God would soon intervene on behalf of his people, sending a cosmic judge of the earth, the Son of Man who would destroy the forces of evil and set up God’s kingdom.  In preparation for his coming, the people of Israel needed to repent and turn to God, trusting him as a kindly parent and loving one another as his special children.  Those who refused to accept this message would be liable to the judgment of God, soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man.

Scholars today talk not only about the three Synoptic Gospels, but also their sources (as they did, in fact, in Schweitzer’s day as well).  It is striking that apocalyptic teachings are found on Jesus lips in all layers of our tradition:  they are found in our earliest Gospel Mark.  Read chapter 13!  And Mark’s summary of Jesus’ teaching in 1:15 is thoroughly apocalyptic: the end of this current age is at hand, the Kingdom of God is soon to arrive, people need to repent in preparation for it.

Such sayings are also found in the source common to Matthew and Luke commonly called Q.  They can be found in the material unique to Matthew, from the source(s) scholars call M.  They are present as well in the material unique to Luke, from the source(s) scholars call L.  In other words, they are at every layer of our Synoptic traditions.  (I give lots of examples in my fuller treatment of this matter in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.)

When you arrange the Gospels chronologically, it is striking that the apocalyptic preaching so prominent in Mark and Q later begins to fade (Luke’s Gospel), then to disappear (John’s Gospel), and then to be opposed (the Gospel of Thomas).  Why is that?  Because the expected end of the age never arrived, the Kingdom never came.  And so Jesus’ teaching was modified over the course of time, to accommodate the new situation the Christian story-tellers found themselves in.

The earliest traditions are unified, however: Jesus proclaimed an apocalyptic message.  In my next post I’ll give one other compelling reason for thinking that Jesus must have been principally an apocalypticist, before laying out – possible in just one post! – what I think the core of Jesus’ teaching must have been.  I will then be in a position to argue that he saw himself as the messiah.

Over the years scholars have adduced lots of reasons for thinking that Jesus – like many others in his day – was a Jewish apocalypticist, one who thought that the world was controlled by forces of evil but that God was very soon going to intervene to overthrow everything and everyone opposed to him in order to set up a good kingdom here on earth.  As I pointed out in my previous post, this is the view found in Jesus’ teachings in Mark (e.g., ch. 13), in Q (the source used by Matthew and Luke for many of their sayings), in M (Matthew’s special source[s]), and in L (Luke’s special source[s]).

There is another very good argument for thinking that Jesus must have subscribed to some kind of apocalyptic view (I’ll lay out what his exact views apparently were in a future post).  In fact, this argument is so good that I wish I had thought of it myself!  But alas, credit goes to others.  The argument, as I usually phrase it, is that “the beginning and the end are the keys to the middle.”

We know with relative certainty how Jesus began his public ministry: it was by associating with and being baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher of doom.   And we know with relative certainty what happened in the wake of Jesus’ life and death: the establishment of apocalyptically minded communities of those claiming to follow him.   The beginning was apocalyptic; the aftermath was apocalyptic.  What came in between must almost certainly have been apocalyptic. I’ll flush out the argument later.

For now, let me begin to explicate.   First, the baptism.   There are some aspects of Jesus’ life that are about as certain as ancient history can be certain.  It is virtually certain, for example, that he was a Jewish preacher from Galilee; that in his last week he made a trip to Jerusalem; that he was there arrested and crucified on order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.   All that is virtually beyond dispute, except among people who on principle dispute everything because they prefer conspiracy theory to historical argument.   But historically all that is pretty certain.

Other things in Jesus’ life are also pretty certain, even if not quite *as* certain as, say, the fact he got crucified.  Among those other really certain things about him is the fact that before he began his own preaching ministry he associated with John the Baptist and was baptized by him.   This is all highly significant.

Before exploring its significance, I need to explain why it is so certain.   When trying to establish what happened in Jesus’ life, historians do what they do with *every* figure from the past.  They look for what our sources of information say.  We don’t simply trust our sources because they say something, even if they say something that we want to think.  We critically examine our sources with highly skeptical eyes, in order to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Historians who want to determine what happened to a person in the past look for multiple sources of information (not just one – since one source may have made something up) that are all independent of one another (so that they aren’t simply getting their claims from one another) that basically corroborate each other’s accounts and that are not simply giving information that accords with their own personal biases.

And that’s precisely what we get when it comes to reports of Jesus’ association with John the Baptist.   Take all our Gospel sources: Mark, Q, M, L, and John.   And what do you find?   Jesus’ connection with John is attested, independently, all over the place (at the *least* in Mark, Q, and John).

Moreover, the story of Jesus being baptized by John is not the sort of thing that later Christians would have been likely to make up, for a pretty obvious reason.   The early Christians believed that a person who baptized another was their spiritual superior.  What Christian would make up the idea that John the Baptist was Jesus’ spiritual superior?  Moreover, John was baptizing people for the “remission of sins.”  Who would invent the idea that Jesus needed to have a remission for his sins?  We’re talkin’ the Son of God here….

And so the story of Jesus being baptized by John is almost certainly told in all our Gospels because it is a historical fact (even if the details in this or that story are later embelleshments).

And why is that significant for understanding Jesus as an apocalypticist?  Because of what John stood for.   We get the clearest expression of John’s views in our earliest account of his preaching, in Q.  Here John is shown to be a proclaimer of imminent apocalyptic destruction.  As he says, in urging people to repent:   “The axe is already laid at the root of the tree; every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire” (see Luke 3:9).

This is an apocalyptic image of coming destruction.  People who do not live worthily of God by “bearing good fruit” will be cut down and destroyed by fire.  And when will that happen?  The axe is already laid to the root of the tree – in other words, the chopping is now ready to begin.  Judgment is here and will soon take place.

This is the message Jesus associated with.  It is important to recognize that Jesus had all sorts of religious options in his day.  He could have joined the Pharisees.  He could have committed to the views of the Sadducees.  He could have joined a political revolutionary movement.  He could have simply minded his own business and gotten on with life.  But what he did instead was go to John the Baptist, a preacher of imminent apocalyptic doom, and join his movement.

There can be little doubt that Jesus began his ministry on an apocalyptic note.   In the aftermath of Jesus’ life apocalyptic communities of his followers emerged.  Jesus was the historical connection between that beginning and that end.  His life and ministry must have been apocalyptic as well, as I will be arguing further.

Why hasn't the graviton been detected yet?

An excellent overview by Barak Shoshany, Graduate Student at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

A graviton is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really hard to detect.

Detecting a photon, for example, is extremely easy. There many types of devices that are able to detect single photons, such as photomultipliers, used in labs around the world. In fact, you don't even need any fancy technology; the human eye can, in principle, detect a single photon. (See The Human Eye and Single Photons.)

However, detecting gravitons is much (much much etc...) harder. A famous example (see [gr-qc/0601043] Can Gravitons Be Detected?) considers an ideal detector with the mass of the planet Jupiter, around 1027${10}^{27}$ kilograms, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, which is a very strong source of gravitons. A back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that even in this extremely unrealistic scenario, it would take 100 years to detect a single graviton!

Okay, you say, so let's just make that detector (sometime in the far future when we have the technology to do so) and wait for 100 years. There's a crucial detail that I forgot to mention, however. The star also emits neutrinos in addition to gravitons; in fact, many more neutrinos than gravitons. And neutrinos are much easier to detect than gravitons. In fact, we can calculate that for every graviton that is detected in this scenario, around 1033${10}^{33}$ neutrinos will be detected. So we will never be able to find the one graviton among the 1033${10}^{33}$ neutrinos.

Ah, you say, but we can build a neutrino shield and block the neutrinos! But such a shield would need to have a thickness of several light years, and if you try to make it more dense in order to fit between the star and the detector, it would collapse into a black hole...

In conclusion, even with insanely advanced futuristic technology, it would simply be impossible to detect a graviton.

What we have been able to detect, though, are gravitational waves. This amazing discovery by the LIGO experiment was announced on February 11 2016. Gravitational waves are made of lots and lots of gravitons, just like electromagnetic waves are made of lots and lots of photons. A typical gravitational wave is composed of roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000 gravitons per cubic centimeter, therefore it is obviously much easier to detect than a single graviton.

On the other hand, we definitely do not have the technology to detect individual gravitons, and unless some new ingenious way to detect them is found, we will never be able to do so even with much more advanced technology.

What are the consequences of this technological impossibility to detect gravitons? As it turns out, it doesn't really matter! Let me explain.

First, where exactly do gravitons appear in physics? Theoretical physicists are trying to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single theory, called quantum gravity. We do not have a final theory of quantum gravity yet, but we are working very hard on it, and we already understand many aspects of what such a theory should be.

In a theory of quantum gravity, gravitons are the quanta of the gravitational field. Therefore, quantum gravity will use gravitons as part of its formulation, just like the theory of quantum electrodynamics uses photons, which are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.

However, we did not confirm quantum electrodynamics experimentally by detecting photons. Quantum electrodynamics produces predictions that are different from those of classical electrodynamics, and by experimentally testing these predictions we have been able to confirm that the electromagnetic field is indeed quantized.

In a similar way, when we finally have a good candidate for a theory of quantum gravity, it will produce predictions that are different from those of classical gravity. By experimentally testing these predictions, we will be able to confirm that the gravitational field is quantized.

In other words, what we need to do is not detect gravitons; we need to test the predictions of a theory of quantum gravity, as soon as we have such a theory. This will indirectly confirm the existence of gravitons.

(Note: this is a duplicate of my answer to Why do we need huge things like LIGO and LISA to measure gravitational waves? Why can't we instead just create a graviton in LHC, where we have been able to create pretty much every known particle.)

What is Consciousness?

From New Scientist August 2016

Metaphysics special: What is consciousness?

How does something as physical as the brain create something as immaterial as your sense of self? It could all just be one big trick of the mind

Francoise Hillemad/plainpicture

By Anil Ananthaswamy

In Cotard’s syndrome, the feeling of existence corrodes but something more fundamental does not (see “How do I know I exist“). Even though people with this rare condition feel they don’t exist, there is still an “I” experiencing that feeling. What is that “I”? One answer is that it may be a by-product of consciousness itself.

René Descartes was convinced that the body and conscious mind are two different substances: the first is made of matter, the latter is immaterial. His ideas influenced neuroscience until a few decades ago, but the field has moved on. Today, it is widely accepted that our brains give rise to consciousness.
But how? That is a raging debate. At its heart is what philosopher David Chalmers at New York University termed the “hard problem” of consciousness: how can physical networks of neurons produce experiences that appear to fall outside the material world? As Thomas Nagel, also at New York University, put it in the 1970s: you could know every detail of the physical workings of a bat’s brain, but still not know what it is like to be a bat.

“You may know beyond a doubt that you exist, but your ‘I’ could still be an illusion“

Broadly speaking, those trying to solve the hard problem fall into two camps, according to psychologist and philosopher Nicholas Humphrey. There are those who think that consciousness is something real and those who say it’s a mirage, and so dismiss the problem entirely.

Mind trickery

The former camp argues that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe, one that exists alongside matter and has properties which, perhaps conveniently, cannot be explained by our present understanding of physics. If taken to the extreme, says Chalmers, this idea can lead to panpsychism, the view that all matter – even inanimate objects like rocks – is imbued with some degree of consciousness.
Even without tackling that particular Pandora’s box, this camp faces a daunting challenge. We know that conscious thought can influence the body. A conscious desire to move your arm results in physical movement. But the fundamentals of how this happens remain hazy.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Those on the other side say the hard problem creates one where there is none. “It’s an unsolvable mystery, because the problem is ill posed,” says neuroscientist Michael Graziano of Princeton University. He argues that consciousness is nothing but a trick of the mind. What’s more, the brain doesn’t just create the illusion of consciousness but also the feeling that there is a separate, immaterial “I” having a conscious experience. In other words: there is no need to explain strange interactions between material and immaterial things because the immaterial things don’t really exist.

For Graziano, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett and other “materialists”, the real issue is not solving the hard problem but explaining how the brain accomplishes this trickery. Graziano resolves this by saying that consciousness is “the brain’s way of describing to itself what it means to pay attention to and deeply process a signal”.
The argument goes like this: we must pay attention to our environment to survive. As a result, our brains have become very skilled at representing the world around us. Somewhere in the course of evolution, they began representing objects as having immaterial properties, and in so doing it generated the mirage of consciousness.
Ultimately, most materialists take the view that after we die and our brains and bodies have decomposed, there is nothing left. That must mean that our prevailing sense of a separate, immaterial “I” was also an illusion.
Which brings us back to the previous question: although you may know beyond doubt that you exist – and indeed it is very possible that you are not a simulation – the “I” you perceive yourself to be could still be an illusion.
This article appeared in print under the headline “What is consciousness?”

Dodge City Part 4

Having lost the argument regarding Biblical contradictions, a Christian Apologist changes the subject to Quantum Physics...

	TEXT	COMMENTARY
1	Bible contradiction of the day
2	Posted by A Pantheist on 15 Aug 2016 at 9:36PM
3	Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
4	Exodus 24:9-11
5	God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.
6	1 Timothy 6:15-16
7
8	So can you see God or not, or does it depend what you've been drinking?	LOL. Well, I don’t think anyone can see God.
9
10	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
11	Posted by JimC on 15 Aug 2016 at 9:54PM
12	As you say, it is a contradiction. The Bible explains that no one can see God and if they do they will die. So as well as Timothy we have...
13	No man shall see me, and live. Exodus 33:20
14	No one has ever seen God. John 1:18
15	But there are also dozens of references in the Bible where people see God "face to face" and don't die. According to Deuteronomy 5:4 all the people of Israel saw God.
16	If I had to choose, I'd say John 1:18 is the right answer.	In other words, no one has ever seen God.
17
18	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
19	Posted by A Pantheist on 15 Aug 2016 at 10:02PM
20	well not while sober anyway	That does raise an interesting point…
21
22	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
23	Posted by JimC on 15 Aug 2016 at 10:34PM
24	Possibly under the influence of psychotropic drugs rather than alcohol, according to Benny Shanon (professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). He states that Moses' experience on Mount Sinai was probably the effect of narcotics, specifically the bark of the acacia tree. He also says Moses was probably on drugs when he saw the burning bush. The indigenous people of the Amazon use a similar drug to fuel identical religious experiences even today.
27
28	Shanon's paper can be found here... http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Roberts.pdf
29
30	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
31	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 15 Aug 2016 at 11:49PM
32	I'm sure they saw some of God in some form, just as did Abraham (Genesis 17:1), Solomon (1 Kings 3:5, 9:12, and 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1,5), and possibly other references. That is not to say that any of them saw God, face to face, in His full glory--which is clarified by Moses himself in Exodus 3:1-6; 33:18-23; and Deuteronomy 4:12	Hmmm. I think that’s unlikely.  Anyway, the Bible does use the phrase “face to face” and this “full glory” idea is a different thing. The point here is people seeing God face to face when He is not in “His Full Glory”
33	Note also that 1 Timothy 6:15-16 refers to God in His true form in "unapproachable light", again clarifying context.	That doesn’t clarify context. That’s a completely different context.
34	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
35	Posted by JimC on 16 Aug 2016 at 7:26AM
	But according to the Bible, people did meet God face to face.
36	So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
37	- Genesis 30:32
38	The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.
39	- Exodus 11:33
40	They have already heard that you, Lord, are with these people and that you, Lord, have been seen face to face
41	- Numbers 14:14
42
43	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
44	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 17 Aug 2016 at 11:40PM
45	As I pointed out--or attempted to--God appeared in some form to many persons of spiritual note, perhaps in some form "face to face."	Yep, that’s what the Bible says, but it also says no one has seen God.
46	The issue is "God in His FULL GLORY."	That’s not the issue. That’s a different topic. The issue here is people meeting God face to face when He’s not “in His full glory”. A phrase that’s not in the Bible by the way, so why is it in quote marks?
47
48	Recall that the request of Moses to see God in His "FULL GLORY" was the request that God denied "because no one may look upon the face of God (as He truly is) and live." cf. Exodus 33:18-20, and by implication 1 Timothy 6:15-16	Again – that’s a different topic.
49
50	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
51	Posted by A Man in Tights on 18 Aug 2016 at 2:27AM	This is interesting stuff. And common across most ancient, human cultures.
	So much of the early books of the Bible have been verified historically through archaeology, etc...I wonder if some of what was written was simply an echo of pre-Abraham magic. Again, from History of the Jews
	The Israelites were already in the process of becoming very distinctive, and in certain critical respects they were spiritually in advance of their age. But they were still a primitive people by the standards of advanced societies in 1250 BC. Even in their spirituality they retained many backward elements, and continued to do so for centuries. Indeed, being both historically minded and legalistic, they were inclined to formalize and cling to old superstitions. There were many taboos, for instance, concerning sex, blood and battle. Belief in magic was ubiquitous and institutionalized. Moses not only talked to God face to face and presided over stupendous miracles, he also performed magic tricks. Staffs and rods turned into snakes, the vulgar commonplace of ancient Near Eastern magic, were part of Israelite religion too, and sanctified from the age of Moses and Aaron onward. The earlier prophets, at least, were expected to perform, and often wore the magician's apparatus.
52
53	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
54	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 18 Aug 2016 at 5:58AM
55	An interesting bit of speculation on the part of an author who is himself a Catholic. Anyone can speculate about anything, of course, but I wouldn't draw the same conclusions.	Why?
56
57	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
58	Posted by JimC on 18 Aug 2016 at 6:07AM
	The stories of meeting gods, gods intervening in human affairs, magic tricks and so on, are not unique to the ancient people of the Levant.
59	Many ancient cultures had similar stories.
60	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
61	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 18 Aug 2016 at 6:17AM
62	True, and not just in the Levant--which begs the question of how universal an awareness of spiritual forces is among humankind.	What is a “spiritual force”? I suppose he means the supernatural.
63	Recall that the philosophical basis of dualism--that there is both a spiritual realm and a physical realm--is a fairly recent Western construct.	Eh? Religious dualism is as old as the human race. Nearly every ancient culture came up with a realm for the gods separate to a realm for humans. Heaven and Earth.  That’s not recent or Western. Where does he get these ideas from?
	Materialists then simply rejected the existence of the spiritual realm, pretending that everything boils down to non-spiritual forces at the root of everything, which is an aberration in human thinking not supported by those who recognize spiritual forces at work.	And why have we suddenly stopped the conversation about seeing God?
66	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
67	Posted by JimC on 18 Aug 2016 at 6:20AM
	Indeed, the concept of the supernatural was fundamental to human development in ancient times. It was the only way to explain the physical world at that time, until very recently in fact. It's part of human nature.
68
69	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
70	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 18 Aug 2016 at 6:27AM
71	When you state "it was the only way to explain the physical world at that time," you are asking us to swallow your assumption that that's all that spiritual understanding is--and that's wrong. Spiritual understanding is recognizing that there is a greater component to the nature of reality than materialists are able to recognize.	I’m not asking any such thing.  This is a straw man argument, perhaps as a way to avoid the topic.
72
73	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
74	Posted by JimC on 18 Aug 2016 at 6:33AM
	All I said was that supernatural explanations were the only explanations available at that time. The other words are an argument you've invented which you then refute.
75
76	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
77	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 23 Aug 2016 at 12:22AM
78	I quoted you accurately and completely in my response. I note that you again are ignoring that fact. Happy to point out that you have no rational response to my actual point, and am happy to accept your tacit concession on the matter.	Quoting me is pointless if he’s going to base his response on an argument I didn’t make! Good bye topic!
79
80	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
81	Posted by JimC on 23 Aug 2016 at 7:35AM
	You quoted me, then created your own argument which you went on to refute. You may as well have not quoted me at all.
82
83	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
84	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 24 Aug 2016 at 11:29PM
85	I quoted you, honestly and completely, and provided commentary. I get to do that too, remember? If you have an issue with my comment then address such on topic.	Yes, he quoted me, and then created a straw man and went on to refute that, ignoring what I said. I think he’s given up having lost the Biblical Contradiction argument.
	Obviously you didn't care to carry on the discussion, so again I'm happy to accept your tacit concession to my point.
86
87	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
88	Posted by JimC on 24 Aug 2016 at 11:49PM
	No, you quoted me, then created an argument that was not what I said, then refuted the argument you'd invented. There is no point quoting me if you begin your response with an argument you've created which you then refute. I can't justify an argument I didn't provide!
89	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
90	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 12:00AM
91	I disagree--I bend over backwards to address your points as they stand, and not merely offer what you would have us believe are "interpretations" of my posits without quoting me at all. Do you have an actual on topic response to the matter I brought up?	What is he talking about now? On topic response? He dumped the topic on line 62/63
92	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
93	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 12:16AM
	You will have to remind me of the point you want me to address, because I don't know what it is.
94	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
95	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 12:35AM
96	You could have read my statement and responded to it in the first place, but here it is again:	There’s the straw man again.
	When you state it was the only way to explain the physical world at that time," you are asking us to swallow your assumption that that's all that spiritual understanding is--and that's wrong. Spiritual understanding is recognizing that there is a greater component to the nature of reality than materialists are able to recognize."
97	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
98	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 12:42AM
	I have never said "that's all spiritual understanding is." That's an argument you've invented. I can't defend what I didn't say.
99	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
100	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 1:05AM
101	Do you believe that to be true? If not, what do you believe?	Ah well. So much for any discussion on Biblical Contradictions. The conversation is definitely dead.
102	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
103	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 1:13AM
	I don't know if it's true because I don't know what it means. Can you give me a definition of “spiritual understanding”
104	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
105	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 1:27AM
106	An understanding that there is a spiritual dimension to "reality" that is not ultimately based on materialism or mindless physical processes.	This is not a definition of “spiritual understanding”. All he’s done is throw in another undefined term – “spiritual dimension”. What the heck is that?
107	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
108	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 1:41AM
	I don't know what a "spiritual dimension" is. I would say that spirituality is one of many human needs, it is a part of human nature. Does that make sense?
109	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
110	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 1:53AM
111	It's part of human nature indeed but that's not the issue. From all you've claimed you don't believe in a spiritual dimension that is not ultimately based on mindless physical/chemical forces. Correct?	That didn’t explain what a “spiritual dimension” is.
112
113	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
114	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:01AM
	Can you define "spiritual dimension" because I don't know what that means. If you define it then I can tell you if I believe in it.
115
116	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
117	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:07AM
118	That spiritual forces are a reality in and of themselves, not merely the result of human misunderstanding into the nature of the way physical forces work.	So now it’s “Spiritual Forces”. I know what a force is but what’s a “spiritual force”?  Is he just trying to avoid the “G” word?
119
120	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
121	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:22AM
	I'm not trying to be awkward I promise - but what are "spiritual forces"? Do you mean gods?
122
123	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
124	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:34AM
125	Technically one can believe in spiritual forces without referencing "God" I suppose, but I do believe spiritual forces reference a supernatural aspect of reality with God at the apex.	This is gobbledegook, isn’t it? What is a “spiritual force”?
126
127	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
128	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:38AM
	But what is a spiritual force?
129
130	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
131	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:42AM
132	That is a comprehensive subject! Now you're just resorting to endless questions already referred to in context of this thread above.	I’m just asking for definitions of words! Maybe he doesn’t know what they mean.
133
134	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
135	Posted by JimC on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:47AM
136	Seriously - I don't know the definition of "spiritual force". If you can't define it is there a definition on line you'd recommend? I can't tell you if I believe in spiritual forces if I don't know what they are.
137	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
138	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Aug 2016 at 2:55AM
139	We've been over this before time and again, Jim. What do you believe is the ultimate basis for all that we perceive as "reality"?	Ultimate basis? Surely he means origin? Or something?
140	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
141	Posted by JimC  on 25 Aug 2016 at 3:01AM
142	Simple answer is I don't know. But to explore the question, you will think I'm trying to be awkward, but what do you mean by "ultimate"? Do you mean what's the origin of the universe or are you asking something different?
143	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
144	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Aug 2016 at 3:13AM
145
146	Of course you don't know, and neither do I, but we all draw our conclusions from evidence as we understand it. You've come to the conclusion that there "probably" is no God and I've reached the opposite conclusion. The ultimate nature of reality would address the origin of our universe but it is more comprehensive: the ultimate nature of all that we perceive and experience as "reality."	Again – “ultimate nature of reality” – what does that mean? Does there have to be an “ultimate” whatever? I think we’ve covered this in the past… http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-028.html
147
148	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
149	Posted by JimC  on 25 Aug 2016 at 3:30AM
150
151	What does "ultimate nature" mean? Also did you ever find a definition of "spiritual force"? It's hard to have a discussion when you use terminology that is undefined. I'm guessing when you say "ultimate nature" you mean "origin". If so, I'm not sure why we have to assume there's an origin for existence.
152
153	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
154	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Aug 2016 at 3:54AM
155	Endless questions again, Jim?	Well, if I get an endless list of undefined gobbledegook then I suppose an endless list of questions would result!
156	I think my post is clear enough on the matter for addressing its points, don't you?	Obviously not!
157
158	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
159	Posted by JimC  on 25 Aug 2016 at 8:13AM
160	Not endless questions, just unanswered questions. How do you define "spiritual force"? What does "ultimate nature" mean (how does "ultimate" fit in this context?)
161	It's hard to have a discussion when you use terminology that is undefined. If you can't define the terms you use it implies you don't know what they mean. So I have to guess. I'm guessing when you say "ultimate nature" you mean "origin". Agreed? If so, I'm not sure why we have to assume there's an origin for existence.
162
163	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
164	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Aug 2016 at 10:06PM
165	I'll ignore for the moment the number of times that you completely ignore my posits and fail to respond to MY points, although I'm happy to accept your tacit concession on such matters.	LOL
166	"Spiritual forces" is a big subject and we of course could always repeat the discussions we've had on the matter already. As previously stated, sufficient for on topic discussion in this thread at this point, they are supernatural forces, as previously stated. They interact with the physical world but are a part of a separate reality beyond what can be rationally accounted for by those of a strictly materialist purview. In fact, there may be a spiritual basis for all that we perceive to be "material" entities or processes.	OK – so spiritual forces are supernatural forces.  He says this was “previously stated” – was it? I don’t know what a supernatural force is. I know what a force is. A force results in a push or a pull on an object, so spiritual forces would do that, and he implies they interact with the physical world. So where is the evidence of that interaction? And I don’t understand “separate reality”. There can only be one reality.
167	Rather than "origin" how about "basis"?	Nope. How about “origin”?
168	You say you are not sure why we have to assume there's an origin for existence. You are free to present evidence and argue from that perspective if you wish.	I’m not sure there can be such evidence. I suppose it’s the same argument theists use for the origin of God.
169	So again the question that you've failed to answer or respond to: what do you believe is the ultimate basis for all that we perceive as "reality"? Do you believe that there's a separate spiritual reality beyond what you believe can be accounted for by a strictly materialist perspective? Puzzled	I can’t answer a question that doesn’t make sense. “ultimate” doesn’t make sense in this context. Separate reality doesn’t make sense. And so on.
170		I think what’s the Apologist is alluding to is that there are aspects of reality that science has not yet explained. And somehow this qualifies as evidence for God. But this is just the God of the Gaps argument.
171	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
172	Posted by JimC  on 25 Aug 2016 at 11:17PM
173	I'm afraid your explanation of "spiritual forces" wasn't helpful because all you've done is introduce another undefined phrase: "supernatural forces". Could you find a definition on line for me and then I can read that and save your time. Your "separate reality" idea also makes no sense to me.
174	You then ask me questions using terms I've already said I don't understand and which are undefined, so I am going to restate your questions using language I do understand. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you and I will try again:
175	Q: What do you believe is the origin of all that we perceive?
176	A: I don't know. But if I was to speculate I'd say all that we perceive is just a fraction of what exists (which might be infinite) and also, what exists probably has no origin,
177	Q: Do you believe there's a supernatural reality as well as natural reality?
178	A: I think a supernatural reality is unlikely because I see no evidence for it. I assume it's not detectable so that means it could exist, but we'd never know. If it could be detected then I'd believe it was real. I would add that if the supernatural is real then it's more logical to think of it as part of reality (singular) rather than a "separate" reality. I don't see how there can be multiple realities. I don't see how reality can be plural. So your question could be simplified further: Do you believe in the supernatural? The answer is the same: I think it's unlikely because I see no evidence for it.
179	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
180	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 25 Aug 2016 at 11:39PM
181	Not that hard to find a definition of “spiritual forces”, Jim, although I'm sure you'll be trying to have me define every word and concept in the dictionary to avoid addressing this topic! This states the definition of "supernatural" from your presumed perspective pretty well:	Well I can’t find one – and it seems neither can he. In any case the latest phrase he’s made up is “supernatural forces”.
182	"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."	I think this shows “supernatural force” is a tautology. The word “supernatural” describes a manifestation or event attributed to a force beyond the laws of nature. So in Supernatural force the word “force” is redundant.
183	Strange that “separate reality” makes no sense to you--we've discussed the matter extensively before!	We have discussed it before and every time we discuss it I explain that I consider there to be just one reality – multiple realities makes no sense.
184
185	By the "origin of all that we perceive" I was asking what you perceive its basis to be in light of "spiritual" considerations. So again you believe that there are no intelligent guiding forces in any way responsible for what we perceive to be "reality"? It seems that you are claiming that whatever exists has always existed, correct? Please clarify your perspective--thanks!	I certainly see no evidence for “intelligent guiding forces”. But in any case it’s not really helpful to throw yet another made up nonsense phrase into the conversation!
186	What would you consider to be "evidence" for the supernatural? Would you only include that which can be falsified through observation of an experiment hopefully relevant to the thing or process being observed? Are there other types of evidence you would consider to be valid, such as matters presented in a court trial?	Court trial is a good example actually.
187	I agree that the supernatural should be thought of as a part of reality (singular)--I'm artificially separating the two because as I understand your position thus far you don't believe spiritual/supernatural forces to exist.	How does “artificially separating” them make any difference? The supernatural either exists or it doesn’t.
188	I agree in principle that there can’t be multiple realities, although Schrodinger might disagree!	I’m guessing he’s assuming that the “many worlds” hypothesis implies multiple realities, whereas it’s describing reality. But maybe it depends how one defines “reality”.
189	You say you think the supernatural is unlikely because you see no evidence for it - OK--that's pretty straightforward--now on to clarity regarding the nature of evidence, and what evidence you believe supports your position.	This doesn’t make sense. How can I provide evidence that I see no evidence other than saying I see no evidence?
190	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
191	Posted by JimC  on 26 Aug 2016 at 12:02AM
192	Don't think you're asking additional questions but again your language is full of undefined phrases like "intelligent guiding forces" but I think you are asking a very simple question:
193	Q: Do you believe in the supernatural?
	A: I think it's unlikely given the lack of evidence. It's not detectable (I assume - correct me if I'm wrong) so that means it could exist, but we'd never know. If it could be detected then I'd believe it was real.
194	Q: Has whatever exists always existed?
195	A: Yes because the state of non-existence is logically and physically impossible. However the form and structure of what we perceive has not always existed in the form we perceive it today because it has evolved, and continues to evolve and always will. So the structure of what exists churns endlessly, and always has done, with universes coming and going. But bear in mind, this is all speculation! No one knows and possibly no one will ever know.
196	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
197	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 26 Aug 2016 at 12:20AM
198	You still haven't clarified what you believe the basis of evidence to be. Does it only involve the observation of falsifiable experiments that one hopes accurately relates to what one is attempting to prove/disprove? Do you believe that other forms of evidence--such as that presented in court trials--is valid as well?	Basis of evidence? Just need evidence. Anything factual will do!
199	I'll set aside for the moment the matter of your previous claim that quantum theory demonstrates that what we perceive as "matter" creates itself from "nothing." Let's examine your current claim that there is no such thing as "spiritual" forces apart from that which can supposedly be explained adequately by other means--once you clarify what you consider to be "evidence."	Oh dear. Quantum theory. The subject of Biblical Contradictions is well and truly dead now.  And I didn’t claim there was no such thing as spiritual forces. I have no idea what they are.
200	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
201	Posted by JimC  on 26 Aug 2016 at 12:37AM
202	The concept of evidence is straightforward. Evidence is factual information. That applies in all scenarios including a court trial. I have explained that many times before
203	http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/evidence-for-god.html
	Quantum theory shows that matter can appear to come from nothing (and disappear again), and energy is equivalent to matter. The fundamental fabric of our universe is a kind of seething, quantum foam. I'm not sure how that's relevant here.
204	I didn't claim that there's no such thing as spiritual forces. Why did you say that? I explained that I don't know if there's any such thing as "spiritual forces" because that's not a term you can define and I don't know what it means. What I said was the existence of the supernatural seems unlikely given the lack of evidence. But obviously it could exist. Anything could.
205	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
206	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 26 Aug 2016 at 1:36AM
207	Of course evidence is "factual information" or rather is based on it--that's a truism. You're ducking the issue by refusing to acknowledge what sort of evidence you accept as valid per your view and what sort of evidence you reject.	“or rather based on it”. Er no… evidence is factual information. If it’s a truism – why ask?
208	So your current claim is that "the state of non-existence is logically and physically impossible." So now you're agreeing that my claim in earlier debates that quantum theory only demonstrates that "matter can (only) 'appear' to come from nothing and 'disappear' again" rather than blinking in and out of "existence" is valid? Thanks for coming to your senses!	That’s not exactly a current claim. But that’s different to quantum theory. In fact he has three different ideas mixed up here. It would be so helpful if he read a book on quantum mechanics.
209	That said, the relevance here is your claim that even universes come into and out of existence as the result of some sort of eternally operative dynamics. Correct?	“Eternally operative dynamics”? LOL. But perhaps hidden in that gibberish is a reference to the multiverse?
210	You state that the existence of spiritual forces is "unlikely" and the basis you offer is "lack of evidence" (even though you have yet to clarify what evidence you believe is valid and what evidence you believe is not).	I didn’t say spiritual forces are unlikely – I don’t know what they are.
211	I did define spiritual forces for purposes of discussion here of course and you're playing the "endless definition of terms" game as a means of ignoring my valid points and attempting to absolve yourself from rationally defending your own perspective on the matter.	He didn’t define “spiritual force” at first (see line #132). A second attempt on #182 seems to be a tautology. He just means supernatural. I think.
212	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
213	Posted by JimC  on 26 Aug 2016 at 7:35AM
214	Evidence isn't "based" on factual information as you say - Evidence is factual information. The sort of evidence I accept as evidence is factual information.
215	Your physics related paragraph is mixing up three different concepts which I've explained before http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-027.html The three concepts you've mixed up are:
216	i) According to quantum mechanics, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. They don't just appear to come from nothing, they do. That can lead to a universe but that's not the only way a universe can be created (see the link above)
217	ii) Elementary particles in our universe are observed to appear from nowhere but nowhere isn't nothing! This is not the same as (i). An elementary particle is an excited state of a field. (It's a “quanta”). Fields are not nothing – they exist throughout all of the spacetime of our universe. The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field, the electron / positron are the quanta of the electron field. So when a particle appears in our universe, it is because its field became excited but the field was already there, it's not nothing.
218	iii) Absolute nothingness isn't just empty space, it means no space at all, no dimensions, no time. This is an impossible state (it's not even a state) so there has to be "something".
219
220	I never said the existence of spiritual forces is unlikely. I can't say anything about “spiritual forces” one way or the other, because you provide no definition of what they are. I assume it's a euphemism for the supernatural. So to repeat: the existence of the supernatural seems unlikely to me given the lack of evidence, and by evidence I mean factual information. But obviously it could exist. Anything could.
221
222	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
223	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 29 Aug 2016 at 11:33PM
224
225	<Laughing> A non response. I asked what TYPES of evidence you accept as valid--remember?	Yes I do remember. And as I explained, there is onl one type of evidence. Perhaps he is asking me for specific examples of what I consider would be evidence of the supernatural?
226
227	Regarding point (i) Rather quantum fluctuation occurs at such a minute level that it is presumed by some--you included-- that what is observed is that such dynamics occur from "nothingness." Of course, all quantum fluctuation is observed in an environment which is far removed from "nothingness." All observations are earthbound. Even interstellar space--exponentially closer to "nothingness" that any earthbound experiment could hope to duplicate--has all manner of presence of particulate matter as well as other dynamic forces. Very little is understood of several categories of "dark matter" other than the way that such presumed "matter/antimater" interacts with what we do recognize as "matter." I won't even get into the subject of multiple hypothetical "dimensions." So, in short, your assertion is unsupported. All that can be said is that, within the limits of our current understanding and ability to rationalize based on such, quantum fluctuations appear to operate in the manner you describe--but that is far from the last word on the subject.	Er… fascinating stuff, but nothing to do with quantum fluctuations occurring in nothingness.  And in any case, interstellar space is not "nothingness". It consists of spacetimeamong other things.
228	Regarding points (ii) and (iii) see my point above.	This doesn't make sense. The three points describe todally different things, point (iii) in particular. The issue is that quantum uncertainty defines a trade-off between time and energy: Something that lasts a long time must have little energy. For our universe to have lasted for billions of years its total energy must be very very low and measurements confirm the net energy is close to zero if not zero. Furthermore, research shows that nothingness is so unstable it can't exist. If we form a state with no quarks and antiquarks it spontaneously starts producing quark-antiquark pairs. My favourite quote on the subject: the big bang was nothingness doing what comes naturally.
229	I did define "spiritual forces"  for completely adequate purposes here--you just chose to ignore it and play the endless "definition" game as a means of avoiding having to offer a perspective that you would be called upon to defend.	He provided a dictionary definition of "supernatural" - I assume that's the same as "spiritual forces". He hasn't defined "spiritual forces" but I'm happy to assume he means "supernatural". I did explain this previously.
230	Note my point above. Let's review further:
231
232	•You claim that there is a "lack of evidence" for for the supernatural.	That is my opinion. It's not a claim as such, rather it's a response to people who claim the supernatural exists.
233	This time it is you making that claim--so: what do YOU consider to be evidence? what types of evidence do YOU claim are valid and what types of evidence do you reject? On what basis? Answers, please. <Grinning>	Didn't I already explain - there is only one type of evidence - factual information.
234	•If you believe that there is a "lack of evidence" for my perspective, what is the alternative? It seems that you would have us assume that another perspective on the matter is valid and universally accepted. What is the perspective that you are asking us to assume is the "correct" one, and on what basis?	I suppose the alternatives to the perspective that something does not exist are it doesn't exist, or it might exist.
235
236	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
237	Posted by JimC  on 30 Aug 2016 at 8:10AM
238
239	You keep asking for types of evidence (plural) - but for me there is only one type of evidence, and that is factual information.
240
241	You haven't understood the three points I made. They are all different concepts.
242
243	- The quantum fluctuations referred to in (i) which could create a universe are not observed, they are hypothetical, defined mathematically.
244	- The particles described in (ii) are observed - these are the quanta that result from fields in our universe, not the same thing as (i).
245	- The situation described in (iii) could be resolved by (i) but that's not the only solution.
246
247	To answer your questions:
248
249	a) I am assuming that when you say "spiritual forces" what you mean is the supernatural. I think you're asking me to provide is examples of factual information that would change my opinion that the supernatural is unlikely. I suppose what I'd need to see is some kind of effect by the supernatural that can be detected. However, if the supernatural is undetectable by definition, then obviously that's not possible.
250
251	b) I suppose the glib answer is that the alternative to the supernatural, is no supernatural. But I'd say that a more accurate way of putting it is that the alternative to an undetectable supernatural is speculation about its possibility. Even with a complete lack of evidence, the supernatural (or indeed anything) might exist.
252	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
253	Posted by A Christian Apologist on 31 Aug 2016 at 11:47PM
254	Again ducking the issue. Do you agree with these types of evidence being valid? http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Services/Writing-Center/Writing-Resources/The-Argument-Types-of-Evidence	Ducking the issue?
255	Re: your three points: Mathematics is an abstract human construct. Do you think that its principles are universally and eternally applicable, even in the hypothetical destruction and re-creation of universes, under circumstances never observed or understood?	Is it a human construct, or is it a human discovery? There's no point discussing the nature of mathematics with him. And what does this have to do with the points I made?
256	As I've pointed out many times before, when you say that you are of the opinion that the supernatural is unlikely, you are asking us to assume that your counter perspective is more likely. When you state that there is no "evidence" for the supernatural, you are implying that there is more "evidence" for another perspective. But of course, you've still yet to clarify what forms of "evidence" you are willing to accept and what you aren't--and why you feel that way.	Counter perspective? And I've explained what I mean by evidence, and I've given examples.
257	You say the alternative to the supernatural, is no supernatural or speculation about its possibility. You say that even with a complete lack of evidence, the supernatural (or indeed anything) might exist. Again, a deflection away from my point above.	Deflection? I gave a direct answer to his question.
258	Re: Bible contradiction of the day
259	Posted by JimC  on 1 Sep 2016 at 7:53AM
260	I've explained the definition of evidence I use many times to you over the years, it's of a single type: factual information.
261	Your article suggests three types of evidence:
262	1) Facts Agree.
263	2) Judgement Disagree. Judgement is an important part of an argument, and judgement considers facts (or should do), but a judgement is not a fact. The existence of someone's judgement is a fact, but the judgement itself may be wrong. So for example, it's a fact that in Stephen Hawking's judgement, a universe can appear from nothing, but his judgement is a hypothesis, not a fact. You might say Hawking's hypothesis is evidence, but I don't.
264	3) Testimony Disagree for the similar reasons as judgment. Testimony might be factual or it might not. The only way to find out is to look at the evidence (according to my definition). Eyewitnesses don't necessarily provide facts, they provide a perception. So for example, it's a fact that Joe says he saw a car go through a red light. CCTV recordings show the car went through a green light. The CCTV footage is factual.
265	Summary Although judgment and testimony don't meet my definition of evidence, they do qualify as information and I'm aware information is sometimes referred to as evidence . If one wants to form a judgment or an opinion, one uses both facts and information. But my strict definition of evidence differentiates between facts and information. The upshot is a difference between your worldview and mine, specifically my list of things that are true is much shorter than yours.
266	As for the three points related to physics, you are still mixing them up. You can't say "note my point above" when the point is a different subject.
267	When I say the supernatural is unlikely, my opinion is due to a lack of evidence that support supernatural claim(s). My opinion would change if the supernatural forces you referred to resulted in some kind of effect that can be detected. That's what a force does. However, if the supernatural is undetectable by definition, then obviously that's not possible.