Dan McClellan : The Bible Doesn't Say So

Sheldon · June 20, 2026, 8:28am

I merely pointed out the obvious contradiction in your claim, that you hear something in your mind, that cannot be objectively evidenced in any way, and that it exists.

Firstly the claim is that you hear a deity in your mind, so there is no sense data being offered for examination, and secondly a claim to have sensed anything is pretty useless if no corroborating objective evidence can be offered to support it,like claiming to see. hear, touch, smell a mermaid, hell you could claim a mermaid sucked you off, so what, and no our senses ALONE are not reliable, you have admitted this yourself by asserting the vast majority of theists making this identical claim are confused?

Are both claims entirely subjective yes nor no? Since that was my only point, I have no idea why you keep using dishonest deflection. FWIW I see no objective difference between a mermaid and a deity, can you offer one for me?

So you believe people have seen mermaids.
Or are you saying sight is not a sensory input?
Or are you simply exhibiting the bias Walter, I and others have explained is an inevitable consequence of investing belief in entirely subjective claims and experiences?

Except you have admitted both directly and indirectly that it is not reliable.

Oh ratty ratty ratty, you’re priceless.

The claims are the same in the sense that:

They are unsupported by any objective evidence.
Neither can evidenced as objectively or nomologically possible.
Neither can be objectively evidenced to exist.

That referred to your original claim. Unless you are claiming that science is claiming objective reality does not exist, in which case I don’t believe your claim.

I never said science was infallible, only that it was exponentially the best method we have. Though the irony of you mispresenting a scientific idea to undermine that method is not lost, you can’t have it both ways.

A laughable claim of course, and not least because the successes of science in understanding objective reality are manifest in the countless practical applications. You are also still trying to defend an unreliable claim by misrepresenting a much more reliable method, it’s classic whataboutism, as I said earlier.

FWIW, if objective reality didn’t exist I could simply ignore your claim as it must be part of the illusion I believe objective reality to be? I think we all heard you sawing that branch your claim was sitting on.

Like claiming to have seen a mermaid involves sensory intput, or viewing a “magic” show, or experiencing all the countless deities you don’t believe are real. and have dismissed as confused experiences, what a happy coincidence for you that yours alone is deemed reliable by you.

I know it hasn’t evidence any deity in any way, and that you can’t claim one scientific idea undermines the efficacy of science without calling that idea itself into question, oopsy you trod on your tail there.

You keep repeating this claim like a mantra, but have admitted that sensory input alone is unreliable, you have called the countless experiences of it confused when they arrive at a different deity than your own, a happy coincidence then? Come on ratty…

So you keep claiming, just as countless others make the identical claim for the deities they imagine, you know the ones you have labelled confused.

“Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy where a person responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflecting blame, pointing out a counter-accusation, or raising an entirely separate issue. It is primarily used to avoid accountability by shifting the conversation’s focus and creating false moral equivalences.”

I am not sure I understand the question, are you suggesting they imagined the results and this was as reliable as practical applications, like counting, and hunting, and early metallurgy? How are those actives and the objective results that verified they work comparable to a voice someone claims to have heard in their head is in fact a deity? You seem to be heading for another of your false equivalence fallacies. If someone imagines something then that alone is not reliable evidence that what they’ve imagined is real, turning what you’ve imagined into a practical result of course is objective evidence to support an idea, just as science has provided countless practical applications and continues to do so, now correct me if I am wrong, but you cannot offer any objective verification that any deity exists in the same way, can you?

If it’s not predetermined then that deity cannot know exactly what will happen before it happens, and it is a contradiction to claim that deity literally knows everything. Quote the whole point otherwise of course the contradiction is lost.

All of them it applies in every single case? Would you board a plane that was designed and built purely on someone’s imagination and not any objectively verifiable data? If not, then why not?

I never claimed the future was predetermined.

I never claimed it was predetermined, only pointed out that IF, (note the word) a deity knew literally everything then it must know exactly what will happen before it happens, and thus everything must then be predetermined.

No, the funny thing is you still don’t seem to know what the word if means, or that it represents a hypothetical and not a claim. Lets try bullet points.

IF note the word:

A deity knows you will have two choices, a and b.
That deity knows which you will choose before you choose it.
Do you have any real choice?
Or does that deity not know which you will choose? In which case it quantifiably does not know everything.

So which is it?

Then it could not be claimed to literally know everything, obviously or this would be another violation of the law of non contradiction.

Fine, so you don’t believe a deity exists that literally knows everything?

So you’re back to this false equivalence that all ideas are subjective, but it’s fallacious since they’re not equally subjective. Nor can one scientific idea entirely undermine the efficacy of science, without calling itself into question, though some of the claims you have offered about science are your own subjective opinions of course, like the idea it means objective reality doesn’t exist.

No, I literally can’t accept a claim that is nothing more than a bare claim, if I do then I’d have no criteria for disbelief, it is an impossible step.

Great present that data please, and we can all take a look, as up until know it was claimed to be a voice in your head?

So when someone claims to have experience a deity I should take their word for it? Except you don’t, you already described their experience as confused?

I doubt it, how would I know this unless someone could demonstrate in some objective way that a deity existed, and had created anything? Your hypothetical world doesn’t seem to differ at all from this one, you even presuppose a deity a priori, it’s very circular reasoning.

Walter · June 20, 2026, 8:51am

I’m glad that the issue of sensory input has been raised.

This gives me the opportunity to describe the sceptic’s position on the matter.

If the claim of sensory input is to always be accepted as true, just because it is sensory input then we find ourselves in the impossible situation of having to accept everyone’s testimony as true. Because everyone interacts with reality through sensory input.

This is impossible to accept because it would then mean that we have no method of distinguishing between outright lies, genuinely mistaken testimony and true testimony. Subjectivity would replace objectivity, leading to a complete breakdown of society. Nothing could ever be taken as false and everything must be taken as true.

Courts of law couldn’t function because the testimonies of all witnesses would be given equal weight and the juries would be unable to come to any decisions, leaving judges unable to pass any sentences or to free anyone as not guilty. Also, if such a measure were backdated then all the prisons would have to be emptied. No verdict could ever be considered safe.

The same kind of chaos would ensue in science, where the sensory input of all scientists is given equal weight, regardless of the quality of their observations and the quantity of their data. So a poor scientist who makes poor observations, uses poor techniques and amasses poor data is accorded the same status as a good one. Because the sensory input of both scientists is valued above the objectivity that should be the necessary standard in all science.

So, how can all of this chaos be avoided?

It’s quite simple really. An across-the-board measure is implemented that everyone should abide by. The general and common acceptance that nobody’s sensory input automatically equals truth and that nobody’s sensory input should go unchallenged. This places the onus upon the claim maker to support their claim of their sensory input with corroborating evidence from outside of their own sensory input.

Such a measure minimises the subjectivity involved and maximises its objectivity.

This is the working standard of courts of law and of science around the world, where, when a claim is made it is tested to see if it can be corroborated by independent evidence. If it can then that claim is given greater weight than a claim that cannot.

This method has served the human race well for many centuries and has proven adept at distinguishing between what is mistaken and highly subjective testimony and what is factual and objectively confirmed testimony.

Those advocating the primacy of sensory input have two tasks to perform.

First, they need to conclusively and objectivity demonstrate why the current system needs replacing. Personal preference is insufficient reason. Second, they need to conclusively and objectively demonstrate why sensory input alone is a better system than the current one. Again, personal preference is an insufficient reason.

Thank you,

Walter.

Sheldon · June 20, 2026, 8:57am

Exactly, yet when I explain that, ratty projects stubborn bias onto my request for objective evidence. It’s ironic really.

He’s also trying to claim objective reality doesn’t exist, and so science is not really a more reliable method, by using…yes you guessed it, a scientific idea, more irony.

Hallelujah, praise the….well praise the good sense and sound reasoning used there.

So if someone uses their on own personal experience to dismiss that of billions of others as confused, this is not a reliable method? Who knew…

mordant · June 20, 2026, 12:00pm

I think that it’s also important to consider intersubjectivity.

If I see a three-legged monster in the corner, and become agitated and terrified and tell you what I see, it’s probably true that I really “see” it, but unless you see it also (and can bring a dozen other people in the room who see it as well, and describe it the same) then I am hallucinating.

And not only would several others need to see it, but they should not be “primed” or prompted as to what they are “supposed” to see. Because people are herd animals, and some of them will not want to be left out if they think the “herd” expects them to see something.

This is why personal subjective experiences are of no value to anyone but the experiencer and what they choose to take from it. Independent corroboration, while not perfect, is powerful and highly suggestive, and if properly controlled, can be determanitive.

But this is where we need to be careful because for example, you can have multiple people describe an NDE in the same general terms and you have to control for other variables such as the commonality of human experience (same type of brain and body, same culture, etc) and whether a particular phenomenon is widely known such that someone could conform their description to that, or selectively remember in a way that’s compatible (herd mentality again).

Walter · June 20, 2026, 2:51pm

Rat_Spit could find himself in a bit of corner here if he’s not careful, Sheldon.

Though he might never admit to it.

If he is a law-abiding and tax paying member of his community then he is abiding by the rules and regs set up and run by others. If he respects Private Property signs and follows the Highway Code, then he is abiding by the rules and regs set up and run by others. If he follows all of the many rules and standards and requirements imposed upon him by society throughout his daily life, the same applies. And unless he is self-employed then he is also a member of hierarchical organisation, which will have its own set of rules and regs by which he must abide.

All of the above are imposed upon him by others and all are ultimately derived from the sensory input of others. He had no part in formulating any of these rules and regs. Yet society expects him to abide by them and should he flout them badly enough society will penalise him for doing so.

So, the primacy of HIS sensory input may mean a lot to him, but it means very little to society as a whole. He is probably a very small cog in the big wheels that turn to make our global society function. Those wheels turn because the members of society recognise that their own sensory input is not the be all and end all of reality.

We all tacitly accept that we inhabit a commonly shared reality and cut our cloth accordingly. That’s how humans cooperate with each other on interpersonal, communal, national and international levels. As John Donne wrote, ‘No man is an island’.

Personal preference may chafe at this, may rebel against it or even deny it. But, as described above, if a person is a fully integrated and functioning member of their society, then they can’t really claim to abide by rules of sensory input that apply only to them. Their lives are witness against this.

They are not practicing what they are preaching.

Thank you,

Walter.

Walter · June 20, 2026, 3:23pm

Agreed, Mordant.

I’ve had this kind of conversation before with a Christian in the old forum I used to belong to, Ex-Christian.com.

We were discussing the disparities between the gospels and he was trying to make the case that even though they disagree in many ways, this is what you would expect of different eye witness accounts of the same events. That it was natural for some people to see the same things in different ways. He further claimed that BECAUSE of these disagreements the gospels were, if anything, MORE reliable than if they all said the same things in the same way.

It showed that the authors were just human beings like everyone else and so their testimony was as trustworthy and reliable as everyone else.

I pointed out two flaws with this argument.

First, since we have no way of comparing what was written in the gospels with any contemporary extra-Biblical sources, whatever they say, disagreements or no disagreements, they must be treated as hearsay. So the reliability and trustworthiness of the gospels couldn’t be ascertained by objective evidence. If the texts in question couldn’t be externally tested for their authenticity then his internal test really didn’t move the gospels from their status as uncorroborated.

Second, in the gospels themselves there is a passage which clearly shows how unreliable eye witnesses can be. So, if he believes they are trustworthy, then he is also obliged to believe what they say about the unreliability of witnesses.

John 12 : 27 - 29.

27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.
28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”
29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

You see? The crowd, who had all witnessed the same event couldn’t agree on what they’d just witnessed. Some said that it had thundered. Others said that an angel had spoken. But the gospel writer John, who was also there, heard neither of these things. He heard God speaking. Three different versions of the same event all witnessed at the same time and in same place.

This is why your point about the independent corroboration of events is so apt Mordant. Here the sensory input of the crowd is unreliable and their testimony of it equally unreliable. Yet this was a shared experience. How much more unreliable must someone’s personal subjective experience be when it is beyond ALL testing and corroboration? Where the experience is not shared and language doesn’t do justice to what was experienced?

So, was there actually a still, small voice that whispered into Elijah’s ear or did that event take place entirely within his mind? We will never know.

Thank you,

Walter.

Get_off_my_lawn · June 20, 2026, 4:56pm

Even if we assume that these stories were actual eyewitness accounts, or based on eyewitness accounts, we cannot know how far removed from the actual witness, whether that be measured in years, actuall retellings of the eyewitness, or how many relays in a game of telephone they are from what ended up in the actual texts. Further, we do not know what the eyewitnesses saw that did not end up in the texts, i.e. how the information was filtered, redacted, or censored.

Correct. Further, given that this allegedly happened a couple of thousand years ago, in a day and age where even educated people had very little clue about science and psychology, one must also assume that things that were seen but not understood, easily could have been mistaken for supernatural phenomena, miracles, or intervention from a god. Heck, even a quite normal natural disaster like an earthquake or a severe storm was probably understood as an expression of an angry god.

mordant · June 20, 2026, 5:45pm

This reminds me of a (IMO quite valid) critique of the gospels that they “do not state their methods or methodology”. In a way this is somewhat true of all ancient texts because to a large extent there were no methodologies yet (no one had invented, e.g., journalism), so it’s silly to expect them.

However, it’s also true that modern, educated readers can and should give far more credence to authors who have transparency around their standards and methods. If someone today were committing eyewitness accounts to prose concerning something extraordinary, we’d expect them to say, “I am a journalist with the following training and experience”, “I interviewed as many eyewitnesses as I could, taped and transcribed those interviews, noted agreement and disagreement where observed”, my publisher and editor also vetted my work and requested correction, documentation or clarification where needed, etc.

By contrast the gospel authors not only don’t identify themselves, they do not state that they did or did not interview anyone, whether it was, first, second, third hand or more, what corroboration was performed. Instead they relate a story in the style of the oral traditions of the day. And indeed, reputable scholars generally assume that their source is oral retellings, written first down into “sayings of Jesus” types of compendiums, and then fleshed out from there, because this was the known methodology, such as it was, of that era.

In other words the gospels are hearsay and folk tales, and were likely tuned by the authors to support a developing proto-orthodoxy. Just because ancient authors didn’t “know better” doesn’t suddenly make them more credible or exempt them from scrutiny. It’s just a built-in limitation of the genre.

rat_spit · June 20, 2026, 6:31pm

I’m quite capable of objectively evidencing it according to my standards for what I define as “real”.

No. Not to you. The deity doesn’t appear to you. As for myself I’ve examined the data quite thoroughly. It checks out.

lol. Got me chuckling. A tall tale of the sea, oft told by sailors of old. T’would explain the teeth marks.

What else would you add to the senses? I’m genuinely curious. And I claim that theists who receive revelations may be coerced into confusion by the very deities which appear to them. Or, they are confused as to how to interpret the revelation.

It depends on what world frame you’re referring to.

The general world frame of mermaid sightings is on the high seas - where the wind is blustering and the waves are crashing and the seagulls are howling bloody murder - arrrrrr.

The world frame of a revelation - at least in my case - was “out of this world”.

It would be like saying “I saw big foot in my dream” and then “I saw a gorilla in real life.” One world frame is inherently unreal and the other generally more real (more real than a dream).

no. But I believe people have seen forks and knives and I don’t think they need science or corroborated evidence to confirm that.

I’m not saying that either. Of course I take sight to be a sensory input.

It doesn’t really matter if they’re entirely subjective. Does that entail all entirely subjective experiences are inherently unreal? The panic I feel when I see a Komodo dragon chasing after me? Is that “unreal”?

In some cases. In the vast majority of cases it can be used reliably. Like when I see a spoon or fork. I don’t need science or corroborated evidence to assure me that my sight is correct.

How else do I explain the teeth marks? No. But seriously. The fact that a mermaid sighting may be mistaken does not entail that all sense experiences are unreliable or, for that matter, require science or corroborated evidence in any way, shape or form to make them more objective. In what sense does “corroboration” from another person about my sighting of a fork or spoon make me more “objectively correct” about my conviction that I’m looking at a fork or spoon?

Subjective truth claims are not inherently false or mistaken because they happen to be subjective

Are you saying that the known laws of nature do not allow for the possibility of God?

Then your insistence on using science to “objectively corroborate” sensory experiences helps you in no way. In which case you have no grounds to cite “science” as such. And even if you do cite “science” as such, you are caught in the bind which quantum physics reveals to us (irregardless of whether you believe the claim or not).

I’m not undermining the method. The method reveals something about nature - ie. the scientific method once again reveals things about nature. Case in point. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle - if you know the position of a quantum object you do not know its velocity. If you know its velocity you do not know its position.

why? Because measurement assumes arbitrary values - which is contrary to the quantum world. Quantum objects do not take on arbitrary values. They exist as probabilities. As such the world is not “objective”. Rather it is our bias for measurement which assumes objectivity onto the phenomenon it measures.

Yeah sure. What do think it is I am doing with your claims? Do unto others … as they say.

One example of a sensory experience which turns out to be mistaken does not disprove the truth hood of all sensory experiences.

We’ll get to this later.

Forks and spoons. What is it about science or corroboration from “other” evidence which makes the sighting of a fork or spoon more real to me (or you)?

Not “confused” by the existence of a deity. Confused by the interpretation or what to do with the sighting - or even inherently confused by a deliberate attempt to confuse on the part of the deity. Deities do that. Even in my own revelation there was much to be confused about. What else would you expect from a finite demonstration of an infinite being? They can’t possibly demonstrate everything about them. So, we get burning bushes and what not instead.

Can citing whataboutism be used in a whataboutist fashion? Because that appears to be your motive in bringing the phenomenon up.

You seem to think that I use the voices in my head as my primary understanding of the deity. That’s not the case. I’m using an other worldly demonstration appealing to all five senses and our notions of space and time - like literally waking up in another world. I could use my voices as additional evidence, here I’m not.

and you’re not playing nice. Instead of answering the question you jumped ahead and presumed my intentions. Why don’t you just answer the question?

The Deity knows what can happen before it happens. You’re confusing what will happen with what can happen. What will happen happens on the horizon between the present and the future. What can happen happens on the horizon between the future and “what is possible”. What will happen between now and then does not determine what can happen between then and beyond.

Every single case? A fork?

Every plane was originally an idea in the mind of an inventor. Would I board the one built at Kitty Hawk. Probably not. I’d wait for proof of concept first.

You have claimed that knowing the future entails knowing what will happen in the future. Why don’t you define knowing the future as a function of what can happen?

The deity, since it knows everything about what can happen is capable of knowing everything that will happen, IF (not the word) said possibility is actualized. So it knows what will happen given every possible permutation of what can happen. Since what can happen determines what will happen and since what can happen exists as possibility, the deity does not assume that one given course of history represents the actual course of history. The actual course of history is defined in the present moment and the next immediate moment. There is no such thing as a series of moments which have all simultaneously been actualized.

I can’t continue using more time. It hasn’t been a waste of time. But if I spend any more time on this, I will miss an appointment.

Bon voyage. Don’t let any mermaids suck you off in the meantime. And if they do, don’t let them use their teeth. And if they do, blame it on the leprechauns when your wife inquires!

Sheldon · June 20, 2026, 8:06pm

Having your own standard, and being objective are mutually exclusive.

Not to anyone, only to you, now what do we call that when someone is making a claim that they can’t evidence to anyone else, come on ratty you can do this…

Just as people who claim to have seen mermaids are convinced.

Obviously objective evidence, I may have mentioned this, others can see for themselves.

There is only one word, but nice evasion, I ask again are both claims entirely subjective yes nor no?

Word salad, you do this every time, but this lack of integrity does not support your claim.

Which makes your bias manifest.

Nice quote mining, now here’s your full claim, and my complete questions, are your beliefs capable f that much honesty?

If it is objective evidence (it’s not by the way) then you have only bias to disbelieve claims from others using it?

Not to people who don’t care about bias obviously, but you can believe anything then, that’s rather the point that you’re deliberately missing, and all the while of course dismissing identical claims as confused.

Yu don’t get to have your own word definitions. Do this again and I will respond in kind.

Like people claiming to be convinced they have seen mermaids, or the countless billions that claim to have experienced other deities, that you claim are confused. How convenient.

Tens of billions of cases, against your sole opinion, that is the polar opposite of reliable ffs.

Just the ones that don’t match the belief you want to hold, yes we get it. Again, priceless…

Nice straw man, any chance you will address my point honestly? I am guessing not

No, read it again more carefully.

So you get to make claims purportedly using science, that are clearly nonsense, but I can’t, yeah that’s hilarious. Also it was you who cited science in this instance, and not me. From now on if you are going to make claims about science, then mainstream scientific citations will be needed. Bare claims go in the bin.

Absolutely not, but that clearly was your intent. Either way you have failed to evidence a deity.

This will save some bandwidth.

Nice straw man, but you dismissed them as confused from tens of billions, then claimed they are reliable, does 1 being right in tens of billions sound like a reliable method to you, seriously? How deep are you going to dig this pit ratty?

Straw man….and a false equivalence of course, since we know that forks and spoons exists as an objective fact, unlike deities, this trap will have a sign saying “watch out ratty” if you keep falling into it this often.

I am starting to feel a bit guilty, so I will give you a clue:

Can the existence of forks and spoons be objectively evidenced?
Now, can any deity be objectively evidenced?

Think hard now…

So the experience is demonstrably not reliable, as you claimed.

What followed was nothing that resembled any thought I have offered. You also entirely ignored what I’d posted.

I did, even though the question was vague, but you ignored my answer.

Does it know exactly what will happen, or what can happen, as those are two different claims? If it doesn’t know the first, then it does not know literally everything.

Are you saying you don’s know what every means?

Why?

Nope, never claimed that either. You really need to read more carefully.

Does it know exactly what will happen? If it does not then it demonstrably does not know literally everything, you seem to be confused, yet the question is very simple?

Lets retry the question you ignored:

You are faced with choice a or b.
Does a deity know which one of those you will choose before you make the choice?

It’s very simple really. It either knows and therefor your choice is an illusion, r it doesn’t, and therefor does not know literally everything.

Here is a tip, word salad won’t help.

Walter · June 20, 2026, 10:25pm

Well, to be fair Mordant and for what its worth, the apostle Luke says this at the beginning of his gospel.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

And then he continues like this at the beginning of the book of Acts…

1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

So, if we take these passages at face value we can know their purpose. Luke is writing to someone called Theophilus, supposedly giving a true and accurate account of the events surrounding an itinerant rabbi called Jesus. But if we do that, then this immediately generates a problem.

If we accept what is written in one holy book that purports to give a true account of events, then to be consistent, we have to apply the same standard to ANY holy book that purports to give a true account of events.

No. The only way forward is to apply one sweeping and consistent standard across the board that any and all such claims must satisfy. Whatever any holy book claims to be true must be corroborated by independent contemporary sources. If it isn’t (or can’t be) then the truth of the claim is cast into doubt.

Thank you,

Walter.

mordant · June 20, 2026, 10:51pm

Well this is as close as the text ever comes to what I’m suggesting but:

It doesn’t identify the author, his qualifications or methods
It claims he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” but not how. Did he interview actual eyewitnesses? Did he seek corroboration? Did he look at contemporaneous public records, which likely would have still existed at the time? Did he speak equally to adherents of the Way, and to outsiders? Even hostile witnesses can confirm the account, or aspects of it – and probably reveal their bias and potential duplicity, ths undermining anything actually counterfactual in their accounts. He should be unafraid to leave no stone unturned. Yet we are left with a vague, nonspecific claim that he was thorough.
“Theophilus” is someone who is not identified elsewhere, in or out of scripture. Who is he, and what is his interest? The use of the Roman honorific, “most excellent”, suggests he’s a fairly high government official, an actual person. But the name means “friend of God” or “loved by God” and so he may simply be a figurative stand-in for any Christian (or at least, theist). But IF the author is writing for an audience of one, he’s apt to slant it to that person’s needs / beliefs / assumptions. It would be better if he were clearly writing to a general audience.

There’s another problem here, which is that the author says “many” have undertaken to write such an account, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses". This blows a huge hole through the notion that Luke, at least, is an “eyewitness account”, as Luke basically admits he’s fleshing out an oral tradition (“handed down to us”) and is manifestly NOT any sort of eyewitness account. It’s almost as if he’s writing at least one generation after the events, or how would anything be “handed down”?

And the later the date of his writing, the more sense this phrasing makes. IIRC Luke is generally dated around AD 80 or 90, which would be around two generations after the alleged crucifixion and resurrection. Any living persons from that time who were not children (say, they were 20 at the crucifixion) would now be 75 or so year old … meaning in practice that most of them were dead. Non-senile, non-demented eyewitnesses would be hard to come by. And even they would have old / fuzzy memories, influenced and shaped and morphed by decades of story-swapping and hearsay. And any younger people surviving to Luke’s time would have seen the events through the eyes of a child, providing even more distortion to the account.

And of course … Luke actually doesn’t even claim he’s talking to eyewitnesses. His only claim is that he’s repeating hand-me-down campfire stories.

Walter · June 20, 2026, 11:16pm

Agreed.

And what does the word “many” mean here? If Luke was aware that Matthew, Mark and John had also “drawn up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us” do these three other gospel writers amount to ‘many’?

It sounds like Luke is aware that there were ‘many’ more gospels out there. And yet, by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. there are only four accepted gospels. Does that mean that out of this ‘many’ the ones that didn’t make the cut weren’t ‘god-breathed’ but these four were?

Too many to list here, but this link gives an idea of how many were ‘many’.

It seems that the more one looks into this the worse it gets!

mordant · June 20, 2026, 11:22pm

Oh yes. Especially when you understand that modern Christianity doesn’t have some sort of idealistic unbroken thread back to Jesus himself, swatting the occasional “fly” of heresy. It’s actually just one of (charitably) dozens of competing orthodoxies that was in fact termed heretical by its opponents (as it did to them), but just happened to win out. There wasn’t anything truly special about the proto-orthodoxy that evolved into modern creedal Christianity. It was just in the right places at the right times, including a nice boost from the secular authorities.

Walter · June 21, 2026, 10:47am

Agreed.

Let’s not also forget that Old Testament was no more set in stone in ancient times than was the New. As this link shows.

But no matter how ordinary humans have spliced and diced the text, non-canonical snippets have still got past censors. Such as this.

9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Apparently that’s from the Book of Enoch. Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Which then begs the question… if all scripture is God-breathed, what’s that verse doing in it?

So much for Biblical perfection, inerrancy and infallibility!

den_mad_dog · June 21, 2026, 5:37pm

I addressed your English proficiency in another thread. Use this as an exercise in learning HOW to research.

Franklin

rat_spit · June 23, 2026, 5:19am

I think that you of all people, an atheist who can’t even intuit the obviousness of the divine, which quite simply, is everywhere is in no position to tell me what the “objectivity of objectivity” is.

And what about all the other people who “suffer” from this affliction? All the other people who have received their own revelation? All of the other people who acknowldge the Divine, which to be blunt, is everywhere you look. You’d have to be spiritually blind not to see it.

Apples and oranges. Confirmations of mermaids exist among, what, some very small percentage of the population? Those who believe in the Divine? Just speaking statistically, it is very unlikely that a few sighting of mermaids are not in fact mistaken. Whereas those who commune with the divine are numerous. The phenomenon is widespread. You may cite ad populum fallacy. I don’t mind. I’m in good company. I can speak openly about my beliefs with others who share the same experiences. And before you say, “so can those who believe in mermaids” - consider again the purely statistical probability that a tiny percentage of people claiming to see one thing is less likely to be real, than a larger percentage seeing an entirely different phenomenon. And regardless of the numbers, we’re not talking about something which you have to go on a boat with pirates to see. Which you have to get drunk on rum and drink seawater ahead of time to see. We’re taking about something which is visible everywhere, all the time. “For those who have eyes to see”. You’re suffering from spiritual blindness. This is not the same as suffering from imaginary creatures blindness. Or would you also like to dismiss the phenomenon of spirituality outright as though on principle?

I don’t know what you mean by objective evidence. I’m beginning to suspect that this is simply a word you employ in order to muddy the waters. And it’s also very sus that you repeatedly fail to produce concrete examples. I don’t know why I’m even bothering trying to get a straight answer from you that might push the discussion forward.

No. My claim is rooted in Divine sight. Which many people have, can describe, can attest to, use on a daily basis to inform their decisions and improve their lives. Oh? You weren’t aware? Oh? You just happen to also be an atheist? What a fucking coincidence? I’m floored. Honestly.

Would you like “objective evidence”. Use your eyes.

Are sightings of mermaids analogous to revelations of the divine? Would you categorize a phenomenon witnessed by an extremely small percentage of the population as exactly analogous to a phenomenon witnessed by an extremely large percentage of the population?

When you demonstrate what “objective evidence” is, come back and we can talk.

You’re biased by your lack of vision. How is that any different? Of course you take recourse to the enlightenment, the progress of science, the advancements of technology, and so on and so forth. You don’t know any better.

Ewww. Is that a threat. Well, hey, hey, hey. That took much longer this time. Usually our discussions devolve around the fourth back and forth. I couldn’t give a donkey’s fucking ass ring if you respond in kind. Do it. Go right ahead. Clearly you’re in another one of your moods. Be my guest. Feel at home. Exercise whatever rights to free speech they give you over on that miserable island of yours.

Now you’re just being rude. I’ve clarified what I meant by “confused”. I also qualified what I meant by confused. Confused does not mean mistaken. But go ahead. Page mark it and keep repeating it. I’m interested to see where this takes us. Clearly civility has gone out the window on your end. That’s okay. I enjoy this part of the talk.

Exactly. Under the right conditions sensory input is unreliable. You can compare your tens of billions of cases to the infinity larger set of cases where sense perception has provided people with reliable information. You still haven’t defined a world view in which “objective evidence” makes my sight of a fork or a spoon more “reliable”. You can’t. It would be absurd. It would be absolutely ridiculous to employ additional forms of measurement to something like the sight of a fork- something which is plain, obvious, familiar, reliable, consistent, and easy to identify - ie. the very same traits and phenomenon which theists all over the world to categorize and identify spiritual phenomenon.

What does “want” have to do with anything. I hold it for the same reason that you hold the belief that, for example, you have a set of forks and spoons in your kitchen. Again, you are blind to the phenomenon of spirituality. You are deficient. You are lacking. You do not have what others do. Countless others. Your breed is a product of a kind of historical infiltration of disbelief. Something which became popular especially as the 20th century donned. You are a blind man following a blind doctrine. You replace intuitive insight with “objective evidence” - I’m talking about the observable world while you’re getting out your calculator to see what 15% is on your dinner bill. Can you do the math in your head? If you can you can also open your mind to the Divine. It is a common occurrence. I feel sorry for your deprivation.

Any chance you’ll tell me how my vision of a fork in my kitchen drawer and the subsequent tactile sensations I feel when I pick it up are insufficient grounds to believe such a thing exists? I’m guessing not …

For the sake of anyone reading I think it’s time to start trimming the fat. We’ve been chewing it instead. For long enough already.

Objective evidence doesn’t exist and isn’t capable of removing bias from subjective experiences.

You have also failed to recognize the deity. Which is a fault on your part. It is not my obligation to evidence a deity for you. I have claimed to have contacted it myself. I have claimed that a demonstration of the deity would require the deity. I have not claimed that I can argue a deity into existence. I can indicate the methods by which one can come into contact with the deity - like open your fucking eyes and look up - for example, but whether you are capable is one thing and whether you chose to believe is another. Belief is not a precondition for knowledge in this case. Simple observation is the only precondition for knowledge of the Divine.

Here you are again deliberately dismissing my clarifications and qualifications. And now you’re approaching the domain of the “rude”. There was a time where I would have taken offence to this and called you an ignorant fuck wad, but I have changed much since I began visiting this wonderful proving ground. And now that you are starting to show your true colours, it may be high time to end the discussion. With your permission of course. You no longer appear willing to engage in a trade of logic. So you are resorting to your old petty behaviours.

Both can be objectively evidenced by the sense faculties and the faculty of the intellect. Apart from that you have cited the scientific disciplines as further sources of objective evidence. Here you are flip flopping and are instead agreeing with me that the faculties of the senses are sources of objective evidence.

“As you claimed.” Are you sure you aren’t of German ancestry. The stick up your butt is showing. I’ve made no such claim. I’ve cited the differences between various revelations as possibly occurring due to the infinite numbers of ways a deity can manifest to any given individual. This is bound to cause discrepancies among the accounts of the revelations. I’ve also clarified and qualified what I mean by “confused”. It is a by product, as I’ve just said, of the infinitely many different forms a deity can take when appearing to a human. Are you going to actually accept this as my position or are you going to carry on with this brow beating, you fucking tart?

You don’t understand how time works. Which isn’t surprising. You view it from an entirely human perspective. Your view on time is finite. You cannot imagine what the “will” of what “will happen” means in the context of what “can” happen. I am not making multiple claims. I am educating you on the nature of time from an infinite point of view. You tree nut.

Are you saying that my subjective impression of the fork is different than your “objective evidence” of the fork? If not then you are agreeing that sense perception is reliable. And yet you claim the opposite. You claim that sense perception is unreliable and the objective evidence is required to remove bias. The sight and touch of a fork are pure forms of sense perception. So what in the holy fuck of Antioch is this entity you call “objective evidence”? I ask again expecting whole sale that you will not answer the question with a straight answer. Your answer will be “I answered the question already” - like the prick that you are.

There is only subjecive evidence that the fork exists. The fork exists for you. There is no protocol which you ever employ outside of your basic senses to establish the existence of the object. Should I doubt the existence of the fork? I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. Should I doubt its existence? I’ve seen and felt the presence of God. I’ve seen and felt the presence of the Divine. You suffer from a lack of vision. That is the problem. Not that the Deity is analogous to a mermaid.

Because it was would likely crash and I might die and I don’t want to die. Straight fucking forward enough! How about you tell me now what the difference is between subjectively observing the existence of a fork and having objective evidence for its existence. Straight forward. No bullshit. You don’t have an answer. That is the only conclusion I can come up with (outside of the fact that you’re a royal cunt).

Sure. God knows what my preferences are. I chose a because a appealed to me in the decision making processes. I could have chosen b but it did not appeal to me. How does God’s knowledge of that affect my freedom to choose?

rat_spit · June 23, 2026, 5:28am

Was talking to Walter, Frank.

edit: saw the other thread. Tell me when you’ve woke from your nap and we can discuss the differences between what does happen, what will happen, and what can happen.

the existence of DNA is something that can happen the moment the universe comes into existence. The possibility of base pairing and deoxyribonucleic chains is embedded into the underlying physical properties and processes of the universe regardless of time or space.

the processes by which they do form only serve to demonstrate that they can form. The fact that they can form is evidence of the inherent capacity for life to arise in the physical properties of matter.

Walter · June 23, 2026, 8:04am

Uh no, that’s not possible.

The earliest era we can reliably extrapolate back to is the Electroweak Phase Transition.

After electroweak symmetry breaking, the fundamental interactions that are known—gravitation, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions—all took their present forms, and fundamental particles had their expected masses, but the temperature of the universe was still too high to allow the stable formation of many of the particles observed in the universe, so there were no protons or neutrons, and therefore no atoms, or molecules. (More precisely, any composite particles that formed by chance almost immediately broke up again due to the extreme energies.)

Without any atoms of molecules the formation of DNA cannot happen. So your statement that it can from the moment the universe comes into existence is simply wrong.

The DNA molecule could not form until about 9 to 10 billion years after the Big Bang. This delay was required for generations of massive stars to live and die, creating the heavy elements (like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) and spreading them into space to form rocky planets with water and liquid conditions.

Thank you,

Walter

Sheldon · June 23, 2026, 2:48pm

Argumentum ad populum. The number of unevidenced subjective claims tells nothing about the veracity of the claim, so that is fallacious.

It is an objective fact that the world is not flat, the ancient Greeks verified this over 2,000 years ago using objective, mathematical, and observational evidence.

“Eratosthenes’ Distance Calculations: In 240 BC, the scholar Eratosthenes measured the Earth’s circumference. He observed that a stick in Alexandria cast a shadow at noon on the summer solstice, while a stick in Syene (modern-day Aswan) cast no shadow because the Sun was directly overhead. By measuring this angle and the distance between the two cities, he calculated Earth’s circumference to be about (40,000) km, remarkably close to modern measurements.”

So claiming to have seen a mermaid is objective evidence for mermaids? Dear oh dear.

Yes of course, wtf have I been saying all this time? In this instance a claim to have seen a mermaid, and your claim to have heard a deity in your head, are both entirely subjective.

I have done this countless times, and you could Google this yourself in less than ten seconds, and ignorance of what it means doesn’t refute the argument, which is soun

It needs no clarification, I know what the word means.

Any method that results in tens of billions of people being confused, cannot also be claimed to be reliable, and they arrive at a very different religion and deity to you, so you cannot both be right, so if they’re not mistaken, think it through for an alternative.

You’re right, everyone else is confused is funny enough, and of course they would all make the same claim about anyone who’s subjective unevidenced experience produced a deity different from the one they imagine.

Nope it’s very easy, someone claims they saw a fork in a room.

Someone goes into the room and they see that fork, they present it to be examined / tested.

Now that first claim is entirely subjective, and the second is not, but this of course is a false equivalence anyway, as cutlery are objectively and nomologically possible, we know they exist as an objective fact.

Deities by comparison cannot be demonstrated as objectively or nomologically possible, and of course cannot be demonstrated to exist beyond subjective claims.

If someone accepts one entirely subjective claim, but dismisses others, this is indicative of bias.

An oddly incongruous statement, give that you have offered only it, and a straw man in response to a very simple assertion from me, and failed to actually address it, that seems like the opposite of “trimming the fat”. Lets make it very simple then:

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity is objectively and nomologically possible? If the answer is yes then go straight to that evidence.

That read for all the world like a child covering its face, to hide from an annoyed parent. The statement is of course asinine.

More than once, it remains circular question begging.

And seeing mermaids, so I am told.

Which principle of logic are you claiming my assertion violated, and why?

That’s not true, you have claimed throughout this discourse that subjective sense perception is reliable, if entirely subjective experience is reliable then the results would not vary wildly, and by your own admission be confused.

Confused results from any method for any reason does not suggest that method is reliable. A subjective unevidenced claim about why you imagine tens of billions of people arrive at a confused result using a method you favour, doesn’t change that.

You didn’t answer my question, again.

No I am saying that if all we had was entirely subjective claims for forks then I would doubt they existed, it’s the objective evidence that convinces me they are real.

No I absolutely am not, you have admitted yourself that it’s not, see where you claimed you wouldn’t board a plane designed and built using only subjective imagination without any objectively verifiable data because in your own words it would likely crash.

So stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork won’t provide reliable verifiable objective evidence that it exists? You really are a clown, I’ve given you far too much credit.

There are plenty, using them to cut and eat food is a pretty compelling experiment they exist outside of our imagination.

Neither one can be objectively evidenced to exist, that a respect in which they are similar, which is the definition of analogous.

You just admitted that imagination is not as reliable as objectively verifiable data. After you claimed not to know what objective evidence is, oh dear ratty.

You still didn’t answer 2?

Since theists make this claim for wildly different deities and religions, it’s just a subjective claim that any deity is involved, and an obviously unreliable one as well.